For what? For a little selling drinks for a dollar? Fine nobody. She's not hurting anyone. This is just another case of the government stealing from everybody they can. If this article didn't say government and said an individual that person would be imprisoned.
As always it’s complex. I think it’s stupid- I miss lemonade stands and haven’t seen one in probably a decade. But.... it’s problematic in 2020. Fits the logic of “protect people even from themselves- even from consequences of their own decisions wether they want it or not, at any cost” mentality so many have.
People game the system and that fucks it up for honest folk just trying to sell lemonade. Kids are worth more money than ever. Think about it. Between social media opportunities and other stuff? There were recently some kids who started a literal nation wide lemonade brand sold in chain stores off a stand.
So if we say that kids can do this or that thing that adults can’t- the door is open for adults to basically use kids as child labor to circumvent rules adults have to follow for a reason. There’s the whole psycho angle as well- adults using kids to carry off things an adult would have trouble with or could get caught- poison/drugged lemonade perhaps? Then of course the kid could get hurt or taken- someone could choke- have an allergic reaction- what about health standards and practices and assurance that the stand meets public health codes?
And if we exempt kids from laws on these things- what stops adults from using that? I want to set up in front of a busy night life spot in the city with a food or drink cart and I can’t- or I need inspections and permits and fees. Why not just have the kid do it? Skip all the crap- keep all the profit. It’s cash business- easy to falsify- and kids aren’t required to keep any transaction records anyway.
Is that all somewhat idiotic? Sure. Possible? Yes. Alarmist? Yeah. Why worry about something improbable that has not happened or happens so rarely that prohibitive actions and consequences seem punitive and petty? I dunnoh. Ever hear of the “no fly list?” Ever have to take your shoes off to board a plane? Can only take tiny bottles of liquids? What about the entire TSA agency which to date- is so fearsome by just existing that all the terrorist gave up because they haven’t had any real busts?
Welcome to 2020. Your shampoo and your shoes are deadly weapons. Not a felon? Not even a parking ticket? Owned a gun for 20+ years without incident? Well give it up because... someday... you might decide to be a criminal even if there’s no reason to suggest you ever would. But speaking of guns- most gun owners never use them for anything but shooting targets anyway. So gun owners aren’t immune from the idea that trying to prevent the unlikely is a wise use of time- just most gun owners don’t want to take other people’s ability to do things in order to make that happen.
But yeah- I think it’s pretty ridiculous overall- a kid just selling lemonade. But... what else to do? You can’t make it discretional because then you open the doors for prejudice and corruption and bias. You could waste a bunch of time and money passing laws to try and allow kids to have little “cutie cottage stalls,” but what then? Kids need to make sure they follow 46 pages about the maximum cup size or maximum quantity they can have for sale and record keeping and so on and so on or... they get a ticket anyway?
They did forgive the fine in this story and apologize. So there is a silver lining. But there does come interesting questions on a broader scale from all this like how much discretion should officers have over enforcing the letter of the law- and as mentioned about issues of prevention vs probability- freedom versus security and so on.
if the govt is gonna be an ass anyway i'd prefer they be an ass to adults and not kids. that's what i meant to say. any govt official that looks at a kid's lemonade stand and decides that the kid fully understands the law regarding the sale of food to other people and is willing to fine/reprimand said kid is a dickhead, but at least they can talk to the relevant adults about it.
Understanding the law is never a requirement to punish someone for breaking it. "I didn't understand that murdering little Timmy for his lunch money was a crime officer you can't punish me for it"
It's sometimes used to lessen sentencing in cases where good faith is in play like with squatters rights and copyright (normally it's used to make punishments harsher for those that didn't have good faith and knew they were breaking the law, not lessen it for those that didn't)
And as Guest_ said, taking things case by case allows hella bias and prejudice to be or into it.
Take it case by case and boom the little [insert genre of person] kid sells lemonade all he wants but [insert other same category but different entry genre of person] kid can't because he's different and the official didn't like his genre.
To give some particulars to the case to clear up some replies I’ve seen- the police didn’t actually ticket the kid or reprimand them. The kid and parent set up. Lemonade stand near a concert event, made about $250-300 in US equivalent, and the police gave the parent the fine and told them they had to close up. The father says the little girl cried because they had to close the stand- not because the police specifically reprimanded her or ticketed her.
As for the idea we should butt out of it isn’t inherently harmful? Well... I agree with the sentiment but in practice it’s not so easy. Maybe you don’t think people should be required to wear seatbelts- that’s a thing that isn’t inherently harmful but potentially. But what about laws against drunk drivers or letting pedophiles live near schools or care for children? It isn’t inherently harmful- plenty of people drive themselves home drunk from bars all the time- and not every pedo molests every kid- some never actual molest any- just porn. So those are POTENTIALLY harmful and not inherently harmful.
One that I know may not sit well with you famousone-illegal immigration and the wall. There’s nothing inherently harmful about illegal immigration it COULD be harmful IF immigrants commit crimes, don’t pay taxes, etc. but not all do- many are constructive and peaceful assets to their communities. So those are all things that by themselves do not abuse harm- but through doing them CAN cause secondary harms relating to the act- so I think we’d agree that a “butt out of all non direct harm” scenarios rule is perhaps sound in intent but not in results.
Speeding doesn’t do any harm. Arguably it harms the environment- but driving any car does that. So we’d also have to dump speed limits. And why even license daycares or restaurants at all or inspect them? Why not just let people do their thing and only inspect or punish IF they cause harm? Same with Doctors and forget the FDA. Let companies make drugs and food and then IF it hurts someone step in. Why butt in to people just doing a job who haven’t done anything wrong?
Being perfectly frank, most of that doesn't sound too terrible. Many of my views are compromises between my own morals and pragmatism. I would be content with people doing their own best life, even if that meant reverting to something akin to the Wild West as it is popularly portrayed, fondly remembered, or demonized as.
If a drunk doesn't hurt anyone, let them drink. If a pedo doesn't victimize anyone, let them have their fantasies. If an illegal isn't hurting or burdening anyone let them stay. Hell, offer a path to legitimate citizenship, just don't offer them a single red cent from a taxpayer until they are legit.
If people are willing to trust their children or food with strangers, that is their call. But a breach of that trust ought to be punished. Harshly.
I don't care much for zero tolerance, for distant lords mandating people a world away, or for anyone trying to force their arbitrary beliefs on the masses. Outsiders should only step in when people are hurting or victimized.
I do truly believe that most people are, if not good, at least just trying to get by. Far more than would ever choose to do harm. But as an extension of that, any harm done on another ought to be met swiftly and harshly.
If an ex-con cannot be trusted with their rights, they should not be allowed to reenter society. On the flipside, society should not persecute a person who has not harmed anyone. A world where everyone owns themselves and can live or die by their own merits.
I'd be willing to stake my life in such a world.
Granted, that is far more libertarian than most are comfortable with, so the measures and systems I back in less fantastical arguments are grounded more in the hand I've been dealt than if I was working with a blank slate.
I can’t speak to people being mostly good or not- that itself is a whole big long post- but other than that I can again- largely agree with the principles of your well stated case. I again must question its implementation however. If most people are good, and a world where people stand and fall by their strengths in near absolute freedom- why would we have locks on our homes or cars? If we can count on folks to do right- or stand by our own strength to exert control over our lives- why would we oppose a persons rights to come and go as they please so long as they cause no harm? What basis would we even have for property ownership- which by its nature impedes the rights of others to free passage and conduct?
And if this freedom only extends so far as to that which would cause harm- who makes that decision of what does and doesn’t cause harm- and who enforces it if people do not comply? What functional society of any scope or longevity has not had an arm of force to keep the rules of society and to prevent those who would use their strength of mass the strength of others as their own to subjugate free men? How do you defend freedom adequately if you rely upon the honor system and social control to stop tyranny- and where was that mechanism of good folks in Germany of Russia or Somalia etc?
My other question is also on the circular nature of freedom. Would you say that you are free to bear arms and the constitution is honored if you could be arrested or stripped of your arms without recourse save your ability to defend yourself against an entire town or police force? Do you have freedom of speech if you can be prevented from speaking?
A world where the strength make the rules is one where the weak have no freedom- if the only safeguard of freedom is your own strength- and you have less strength than whoever seeks to take your freedom- you have no freedom- you only have what others allow.
Lastly- I question on the nature of purely reactionary enforcement. On a social level it’s all numbers. Your odds of being robbed, having a spouse, child, mother- killed or raped are statistically low. But IF it happens to you- then those odds are now 100% for you. It can’t be undone once done- and society will be fine- most of the world will never know it happened. But what about you? How do you go to work and live your life when you must be the guard of all you love or be willing to just allow someone to take it and deal with punishing them after? Why do we even bother with military deterrence or diplomacy and not just wait for war and handle whatever happens after it happens?
If a person doesn't trust everyone to happen by, they should utilize whatever means of security they desire so desire, granted that their property is clearly marked. Locks, dogs, mines, automated sentries, or just a strongly worded sign.
If an individual truly owns themselves, then they also truly own their property, vehicle, or any other product of their labor.
As for enforcement itself, I'd leave that to the community itself. Neighbors, family, communally trained enforcers, or simply leaving the two to settle it themselves.
You can choose to leave yours open to the public, or choose not to.
Keep it at the lowest possible level.
If an individual is weaker than an assailant, or the assailant has more friends and the will to beat you and your friends, then he will win. He will take. That's the way it is in every society, though some prefer to imagine otherwise. On the flip side, 4 guys with a 240B have a better shot of fighting off a gang, and if the gang had M16s to counter that,
then the few aren't any worse off than they'd be without.
Germany, Russia, and Somalia have their own histories and systems to contend with, that's where ideals give way to pragmatism. People took advantage of an overbearing state, or created one through force of blood and fire, and the little guys lost. That happens with every kind of society, as Germany, Russia, and Somalia are decent case studies to. Hell, especially the US is another good case of that.
As for your point on crime, that's already the reality. Rural places and inner cities have this in common: they can't count on the state to protect them when they need it. Life would go on as it already does, one day at a time.
Military and diplomacy would fit in even better. History shows that there will always be men willing to exert force on peaceful peoples, so it only makes sense to make your nation a less appealing target, through trade or by threat of retaliation.
There’s certainly logic to it, a strong underlying principal, and a noble ideal. Communism’s cousin perhaps in that regard- another system that we could sell very well on the brochure but the reality doesn’t quite match up. Akin to communism we also have the fact that no society has ever managed to thrive and function long term on this system- and where a society doesn’t exist in a vacuum such societies tend to fall to external or internal forces- making the only practical means of compulsion strong controls backed by force.
Yeah. That's what I meant by "blank slate" vs "hand you're dealt".
I don't even really have beef with communism in itself. If a community chooses to live that way of their own accord, entirely voluntarily, more power to them.
I feel like I have to add- it sounds snarky or like an attack but I don’t mean it that way. I mean that I see an analog but almost as an opposite. Whereas communism seeks to make people’s lives better through communal ownership and responsibility vs. individual ability and determinism here, and both systems are inherently good ideas with good intentions that only fail when you start to add people who don’t adhere to the system or would seek to maximize their own gain from the system.
I could see the driving forces away from such systems at the “top” of society and the “bottom.” Those who have things they want to keep generally seek to protect them. Knowing that no man is stronger than all men- and the bigger the empire the less able any man is to protect it- men use men to protect what is theirs from other men. The more men you have to do your will the more power you have- the less people have enough force to oppose whatever it is you want to do wether they like it or not.
King’s give knights and lords land and privilege as incentive to protect their larger power and on down the line these knights and lords give little pieces of their fortunes to others to maintain them- just as politicians and CEO’s do with lower executives and then managers and so on.
That was the age of “robber Barron’s.” Men who held so much power in a government that didn’t have the desire or mechanisms to regulate the affairs of private citizens- and so created empires on the literal backs and blood of others. It was a great time to be a robber Barron and not so great to be a worker. Many of those dynasties, even with change and regulation, remain imminent powers in the world hundreds of years later because while it is simple to “overthrow” them in principle- in reality it doesn’t work out that way.
Without an external force to stop or break god emperors though- history shows us repeatedly that the most skilled or ruthless or cunning little lords with any ambition tend to become god emperors. It’s a cycle shown throughout history around the world. If freedom comes from strength and security from strength- no one wants to be the bottom, and having a bottom means having a top.
It’s history. A man controls a neighborhood- but he wants more and he doesn’t want to be just another neighborhood runner. So he gains control of the city. He allows with others and they gather all the neighborhood bosses under him and now if you live on the city he is the god emperor to you. If you live in a neighborhood that boss is your emperor because crossing him means crossing all his allies. Blow it up until a man controls a province and then a nation and then has control all over the world. It isn’t so hard to best a president and his immediate staff at anything- but the police and military etc etc. and then even those of other countries which are allied... not so easy to beat.
Men learned early in history that one twig- even a strong one isn’t so hard to break- but the more twigs you add- even small ones- before long you can’t break them. If we solved all our problems one on one then individual strength works well enough save philosophical disputes. Like a boxing match. But street fights are seldom boxing matches right? Politicians bring armies and the kid at the bar brings his 5 buddies and so on- and even the strongest individuals usually don’t do so well if the odds are stacked enough. In the boxing match you have a referee to say you can’t bring your pals into the ring. What stops that if we take a hands off approach to people’s lives?
HOW TO FIGHT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO ENSLAVE OR KILL YOU
Step 1: Bring a gun.
Step 2: Bring your friends who have guns.
Step 3: Bring your neighbors who don't want to be slaves. With guns.
Step 4: Bring the other guy's enemies. With guns.
Step 5: Hope your side is better at fighting.
And remember, have fun. Otherwise, what's the point?
.
I'm not sure I've made it clear, but I accept that my way is not clean or safe. I accept that violence will ensue. I accept that sometimes the good guys will lose. And above all, I know that all of this happens anyways, everywhere, all the time, regardless of whatever "system" is in place. My only wish is for more autonomy at the lowest possible level.
Though, I seem to recall addressing such scenarios earlier in the thread.
Fair enough. Like I said before- I’m not picking at you or your idea, and we see eye to eye on principal. Just exploring the idea and listening to your take on it.
I'm not taking it as an attack. Frankly, this has been a great opportunity for me to explore my belief system... uninhibited, I suppose. This has been a good talk.
I’ve enjoyed it. I usually enjoy our talks. I just didn’t want you to get the wrong impression like I was busting your nuts or trying to invalidate your beliefs. I think that people often forget that WHY we think something can be as important or more important than what we think. Perspective is good for the world and should anyone else read this I think you’ve done an excellent job on exploring the issue through your lens. Thank you.
My 7 yr old niece went to City Hall and got a permit. They don't cost much hers was free. But she got the right to sell lemonade Al summer long. My brother framed her permit and hung it on her stand.
That girl made 500 bucks. Lol it helps to have alot of relitives sometimes
Her mom and her Dad my brother both have large families.
It's sometimes used to lessen sentencing in cases where good faith is in play like with squatters rights and copyright (normally it's used to make punishments harsher for those that didn't have good faith and knew they were breaking the law, not lessen it for those that didn't)
And as Guest_ said, taking things case by case allows hella bias and prejudice to be or into it.
Take it case by case and boom the little [insert genre of person] kid sells lemonade all he wants but [insert other same category but different entry genre of person] kid can't because he's different and the official didn't like his genre.
If a drunk doesn't hurt anyone, let them drink. If a pedo doesn't victimize anyone, let them have their fantasies. If an illegal isn't hurting or burdening anyone let them stay. Hell, offer a path to legitimate citizenship, just don't offer them a single red cent from a taxpayer until they are legit.
If people are willing to trust their children or food with strangers, that is their call. But a breach of that trust ought to be punished. Harshly.
I don't care much for zero tolerance, for distant lords mandating people a world away, or for anyone trying to force their arbitrary beliefs on the masses. Outsiders should only step in when people are hurting or victimized.
If an ex-con cannot be trusted with their rights, they should not be allowed to reenter society. On the flipside, society should not persecute a person who has not harmed anyone. A world where everyone owns themselves and can live or die by their own merits.
I'd be willing to stake my life in such a world.
Granted, that is far more libertarian than most are comfortable with, so the measures and systems I back in less fantastical arguments are grounded more in the hand I've been dealt than if I was working with a blank slate.
If an individual truly owns themselves, then they also truly own their property, vehicle, or any other product of their labor.
As for enforcement itself, I'd leave that to the community itself. Neighbors, family, communally trained enforcers, or simply leaving the two to settle it themselves.
You can choose to leave yours open to the public, or choose not to.
Keep it at the lowest possible level.
If an individual is weaker than an assailant, or the assailant has more friends and the will to beat you and your friends, then he will win. He will take. That's the way it is in every society, though some prefer to imagine otherwise. On the flip side, 4 guys with a 240B have a better shot of fighting off a gang, and if the gang had M16s to counter that,
Germany, Russia, and Somalia have their own histories and systems to contend with, that's where ideals give way to pragmatism. People took advantage of an overbearing state, or created one through force of blood and fire, and the little guys lost. That happens with every kind of society, as Germany, Russia, and Somalia are decent case studies to. Hell, especially the US is another good case of that.
As for your point on crime, that's already the reality. Rural places and inner cities have this in common: they can't count on the state to protect them when they need it. Life would go on as it already does, one day at a time.
Military and diplomacy would fit in even better. History shows that there will always be men willing to exert force on peaceful peoples, so it only makes sense to make your nation a less appealing target, through trade or by threat of retaliation.
I don't even really have beef with communism in itself. If a community chooses to live that way of their own accord, entirely voluntarily, more power to them.
Step 1: Bring a gun.
Step 2: Bring your friends who have guns.
Step 3: Bring your neighbors who don't want to be slaves. With guns.
Step 4: Bring the other guy's enemies. With guns.
Step 5: Hope your side is better at fighting.
And remember, have fun. Otherwise, what's the point?
.
I'm not sure I've made it clear, but I accept that my way is not clean or safe. I accept that violence will ensue. I accept that sometimes the good guys will lose. And above all, I know that all of this happens anyways, everywhere, all the time, regardless of whatever "system" is in place. My only wish is for more autonomy at the lowest possible level.
Though, I seem to recall addressing such scenarios earlier in the thread.
That girl made 500 bucks. Lol it helps to have alot of relitives sometimes
Her mom and her Dad my brother both have large families.