A Death Knell for Entreprenuership

[Havensdad]

That is true but once a law is on the books we have procedures to follow to get it changed and your suggestion is anarchy and rebellion (lawlessness which God hates). Unless the law goes directly against a command of God we are to obey it and even in those times when we are permitted to disobey we have to accept the consequences of our rebellion.

No. Placing an illegal law on the books does not legitimize it. We are to obey the legitimate authority, not whatever local despot claims authority for himself.

Tell you what, I will come over to your house, declare myself King, and you have to obey me! :laugh:

The lawlessness which God hates, is not the people who stand up to these illegal laws, but the lawlessness of the individuals who think they can ignore the Constitution, and will of the rulers in the US...i.e. the people.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No. Placing an illegal law on the books does not legitimize it. We are to obey the legitimate authority, not whatever local despot claims authority for himself.

Tell you what, I will come over to your house, declare myself King, and you have to obey me! :laugh:

The lawlessness which God hates, is not the people who stand up to these illegal laws, but the lawlessness of the individuals who think they can ignore the Constitution, and will of the rulers in the US...i.e. the people.

So who has the right to decide which laws are legitimate and which are not? Does every citizen have that right? Would that not be anarchy?

On this topic, what is unconstitutional about a municipality requiring a business licence for a lemonade stand?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This isn't the corner lemonade stand in Smalltown, U.S.A. we're thinking about, where the kids just got together and either hand-squeezed lemons or mixed up some powder and sugar and are selling it in a cup on their block.

These "kids" (their parents, actually) went to an event, (and eight blocks is nothing where a bike race is concerned), and in addition to lemonade were selling bottled and canned beverages.

You really think four-year-old Abigail said, "I'll bet there'll be a good opportunity to make some money at the bike race. Daddy, I want a lemonade stand."?

The parents were using their kids as a front, for heaven's sake.

I agree. I saw the various drinks in the photo. Excellent perspective.

 

[billwald]

>So who has the right to decide which laws are legitimate and which are not?

In the US, the Supreme Court has this right.

>Does every citizen have that right?

No.

 

[Aaron]

It really doesn't matter. The idea that you have to get permission from the government to sell something is just plain sickening. This is not a dictatorship...

The purpose of law is to keep the peace. It wasn't permission to sell something. They could have had their lemonade stand on their own property catering to patrons of their garage sale without encumberance. This was permission to set up in a public right of way for the purpose of profit. That must be regulated.

 

[Don]

Free, I need to ask you a question, in order to help me better understand the way you think about things. This is a legitimate question, that I was asked during training, and which I asked when I was conducting training.

Consider this as military or civilian police. You've been assigned duty at an entry control point. Your shift supervisor comes by to check on you. While talking, a vehicle approaches, and rather than slow down to stop and be checked out by you, it speeds up. It's evident that the vehicle is going to try to run through your checkpoint. You and your supervisor are standing in the middle of the road; the vehicle continues to gain speed. Your supervisor orders you to shoot at the vehicle.

Do you? Why or why not?

 

[Robert Snow]

Free, I need to ask you a question, in order to help me better understand the way you think about things. This is a legitimate question, that I was asked during training, and which I asked when I was conducting training.

Consider this as military or civilian police. You've been assigned duty at an entry control point. Your shift supervisor comes by to check on you. While talking, a vehicle approaches, and rather than slow down to stop and be checked out by you, it speeds up. It's evident that the vehicle is going to try to run through your checkpoint. You and your supervisor are standing in the middle of the road; the vehicle continues to gain speed. Your supervisor orders you to shoot at the vehicle.

Do you? Why or why not?

Yes, but only if they have an unlicensed lemonade stand inside the car. :laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Free, I need to ask you a question, in order to help me better understand the way you think about things. This is a legitimate question, that I was asked during training, and which I asked when I was conducting training.

Consider this as military or civilian police. You've been assigned duty at an entry control point. Your shift supervisor comes by to check on you. While talking, a vehicle approaches, and rather than slow down to stop and be checked out by you, it speeds up. It's evident that the vehicle is going to try to run through your checkpoint. You and your supervisor are standing in the middle of the road; the vehicle continues to gain speed. Your supervisor orders you to shoot at the vehicle.

Do you? Why or why not?

Don...is this an example of military intelligence? LOL:smilewinkgrin:

 

[freeatlast]

Free, I need to ask you a question, in order to help me better understand the way you think about things. This is a legitimate question, that I was asked during training, and which I asked when I was conducting training.

Consider this as military or civilian police. You've been assigned duty at an entry control point. Your shift supervisor comes by to check on you. While talking, a vehicle approaches, and rather than slow down to stop and be checked out by you, it speeds up. It's evident that the vehicle is going to try to run through your checkpoint. You and your supervisor are standing in the middle of the road; the vehicle continues to gain speed. Your supervisor orders you to shoot at the vehicle.

Do you? Why or why not?

Well the information you gave is minimum at best as there could be a lot of variables. My answer is based on the information at hand not something that is added after my answer. So based on what you have stated and unless there was some reason to believe that the order violated the values of God I would shoot as ordered.

 

[Don]

Well the information you gave is minimum at best as there could be a lot of variables. My answer is based on the information at hand not something that is added after my answer. So based on what you have stated and unless there was some reason to believe that the order violated the values of God I would shoot as ordered.

The information I gave you was minimum because in such a situation, you only have moments to make a decision.

You and the supervisor would both be arrested. At the very least, reprimanded. If the driver died as a result of your following that order, you would be charged with murder.

You used deadly force on a vehicle. Based on the information given, you had no indication that the driver was using the vehicle for anything other than speeding through your gate. Therefore, while the vehicle could be considered "capability to cause bodily harm or death"; the driver had shown no intent (there was no swerving to "aim" at either you or the supervisor); and there was no "opportunity" (you and your supervisor could have easily stepped to the side, thus removing yourself from the vehicle's path).

In other words, you followed an order that was illegal and immoral.

As a military security specialist during the first part of my career, this was one of the things we had to stress to all our new recruits: Just because you receive an order, doesn't mean you're 100% required to follow it. You have to use judgment, based on knowledge, experience, and hopefully common sense, to ensure the order received is legal and moral.

In other words, we were required to teach ourselves, and each other, to question orders to ensure those orders were valid.

We should only question God's laws in order to ensure we understand them correctly. We should ALWAYS question man's laws, to ensure they're legal and moral.

 

[Havensdad]

So who has the right to decide which laws are legitimate and which are not? Does every citizen have that right? Would that not be anarchy?

On this topic, what is unconstitutional about a municipality requiring a business licence for a lemonade stand?

According to the Constitution (Bill of Rights, specifically), no State has the right to infringe on the liberty of its citizenry. Requiring that you pay money to the government to buy back one of your rights is in fact infringing upon your Liberty. If I have lemonade, and I want to sell it to you, that is between you and me...not you, me, and our Nanny state.

Further, requiring a license in for one group in order to sell lemonade, while not requiring it of another group (such as a church having a bake sell), is a clear violation of the equal protection clause. It is unlawful to make exceptions for one group, while making a requirement of another.

As far as the "who", please read the Constitution. This government is "by the people"...thus, I as a citizen, have a right to disobey any law that I feel is unconstitutional, and have said law tried in a court of law. Of course, unfortunately the courts nowadays are heavily biased against liberty, which makes your stand against oppression less likely to succeed.

 

[Havensdad]

The purpose of law is to keep the peace. It wasn't permission to sell something. They could have had their lemonade stand on their own property catering to patrons of their garage sale without encumberance. This was permission to set up in a public right of way for the purpose of profit. That must be regulated.

Why must this be regulated? That is a preposterous statement. The very definition of "public" property, i.e. property which is owned no by an individual but is open to all, argues against your statement. I should not be required to beg and pay for permission to sell you something on property which I myself have an interest in.

There are plenty of countries where it is perfectly legal to sell in the public sphere without a license or permit. Does it not bother you that middle eastern third world countries enjoy more freedoms than we enjoy here in the US? The whole business license/permitting idea is very recent in its development, and is yet one more aspect of control that the dictators at the top are forcing upon us. If I am in a public park, sidewalk, etc., I should not have to pay or get permission from big daddy government in order to sell another free citizen something. This is an infringement upon basic liberties which are part and parcel to not only the US constitution, but also various state constitutions as well. The government ignores these, for the sake of maintaining control, as well as for monetary reasons.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

According to the Constitution (Bill of Rights, specifically), no State has the right to infringe on the liberty of its citizenry. Requiring that you pay money to the government to buy back one of your rights is in fact infringing upon your Liberty. If I have lemonade, and I want to sell it to you, that is between you and me...not you, me, and our Nanny state.

Further, requiring a license in for one group in order to sell lemonade, while not requiring it of another group (such as a church having a bake sell), is a clear violation of the equal protection clause. It is unlawful to make exceptions for one group, while making a requirement of another.

As far as the "who", please read the Constitution. This government is "by the people"...thus, I as a citizen, have a right to disobey any law that I feel is unconstitutional, and have said law tried in a court of law. Of course, unfortunately the courts nowadays are heavily biased against liberty, which makes your stand against oppression less likely to succeed.

So the government has no right to infringe on anything I feel is my liberty? Like, for example, my liberty to exact revenge on someone who has harmed my family? Or a young woman's right to eliminate an embryo from her body? Or a pervert,s right to have s3x with a consenting child?

Where do you find the right to disobey any law you feel is unconstitutional?

You not in favour of any regulation on business? If I sell something by the pound, yet I define a pound as 15oz, that is okay?

This is sounding more and more like anarchy.

 

[Havensdad]

So the government has no right to infringe on anything I feel is my liberty? Like, for example, my liberty to exact revenge on someone who has harmed my family? Or a young woman's right to eliminate an embryo from her body? Or a pervert,s right to have s3x with a consenting child?


Where do you find the right to disobey any law you feel is unconstitutional?

You not in favour of any regulation on business? If I sell something by the pound, yet I define a pound as 15oz, that is okay?

This is sounding more and more like anarchy.

So the government can just take away any right that it chooses cause you or they don't like what you are doing? The government can just come in and take your kids cause you are teaching them to "discriminate" against homosexuality? The government can tell you what church you belong to?

Your not in favor of regulating religion? Not in favor of the government regulating your family? If I tell someone in my congregation that marriage is between one man and one woman, yet they force me to redefine it as between any two individuals, that is okay?

C'mon. You are smarter than that. You cannot possibly believe what you are saying. I do not think you have actually thought it through. If I sell flour to someone by the pound, it is there obligation to weigh it. We do not need a bureaucrat to jump in the middle and measure it for us. If I choose to buy it sight unseen, that is MY business, not the governments.

Your view is sounding more and more like tyranny to me.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

There are constitutional rights. They are clear. Opening an unregulated business is not one of them.

I am curious. Do you think cities and states have the right to tell you how fast you can drive, or whether or not you have to stop at an intersection, or whether or not a 10 year old can drive a car?

Do we really want a state where I have to carry my own scales to the supermarket? Do we want a state where a store can call something a bag of flour and mix it with chalk dust? Or where I pay for a gallon of gas and get 3 1/2 quarts?

Is it truly tyranny to tell me I must stop at a red light?

 

[Don]

"Unregulated business." Since when is a lemonade stand run by a kid, obviously younger than the child labor laws, and obviously a short term endeavor, a "business" in the sense of the term for which business regulation laws were designed?

 

[Havensdad]

There are constitutional rights. They are clear. Opening an unregulated business is not one of them.

Really? You do know that there is no constitutional right regarding parenthood, right? So I guess it is OK in your eyes for the government to do whatever it wishes?

I am curious. Do you think cities and states have the right to tell you how fast you can drive, or whether or not you have to stop at an intersection, or whether or not a 10 year old can drive a car?

I believe the government has a right to provide physical protection for citizens, when that protection does not violate the right of choice for all endangered parties.

Example: creating a speed limit and traffic laws are permissible, since all parties of the action have not consented. If I am speeding through town, I am posing an immediate threat to others, without their consent.

However, if I and another individual engage in a sale, where both parties consent to the terms, the government has no right to interfere. This is so clear, it seems ludicrous that any right minded individual would argue the point.

Do we really want a state where I have to carry my own scales to the supermarket? Do we want a state where a store can call something a bag of flour and mix it with chalk dust?

Boy, I sure do! Chalk dust not withstanding (since chalk is in fact dangerous in large amounts, and thus would be a criminal action, not a commercial one). The fact is, in a free market this would never happen. People would quickly find out about the contaminants in the flour (through private businesses such as consumer reports, BBB, etc.), and they would do business elsewhere. People would also be able to buy the products much cheaper, and in many cases healthier (since many of the FDA's guidelines are completely non-sensical and contrary to good health practices).

Is it truly tyranny to tell me I must stop at a red light?

Again, this is a situation where possible harm is being threatened against non-consenting individuals. Since you are in favor of the government regulating things, even in the case of mutual consent, I guess they should outlaw dirt bike riding, mountain climbing, and jet skiing. After all, the government must protect everyone, even if it is against there will, right?

 

[freeatlast]

The information I gave you was minimum because in such a situation, you only have moments to make a decision.

You and the supervisor would both be arrested. At the very least, reprimanded. If the driver died as a result of your following that order, you would be charged with murder.

You used deadly force on a vehicle. Based on the information given, you had no indication that the driver was using the vehicle for anything other than speeding through your gate. Therefore, while the vehicle could be considered "capability to cause bodily harm or death"; the driver had shown no intent (there was no swerving to "aim" at either you or the supervisor); and there was no "opportunity" (you and your supervisor could have easily stepped to the side, thus removing yourself from the vehicle's path).

In other words, you followed an order that was illegal and immoral.

As a military security specialist during the first part of my career, this was one of the things we had to stress to all our new recruits: Just because you receive an order, doesn't mean you're 100% required to follow it. You have to use judgment, based on knowledge, experience, and hopefully common sense, to ensure the order received is legal and moral.

In other words, we were required to teach ourselves, and each other, to question orders to ensure those orders were valid.

We should only question God's laws in order to ensure we understand them correctly. We should ALWAYS question man's laws, to ensure they're legal and moral.

Based on the original information my answer is the same.

 

[billwald]

>While talking, a vehicle approaches, and rather than slow down to stop and be checked out by you, it speeds up. It's evident that the vehicle is going to try to run through your checkpoint. You and your supervisor are standing in the middle of the road; the vehicle continues to gain speed. Your supervisor orders you to shoot at the vehicle.

What do your written orders require you to do? "Oral orders don't go." Especially with no witnesses.

 

[Don]

Based on the original information my answer is the same.

If you're implying that I should have provided you the information about what is taught before being assignedto such posts, and that might have changed your answer, I might cut you some slack. However, the board of inquiry won't, and you would face, at a minimum, non-judicial punishment.