A Death Knell for Entreprenuership

So do you think that this is a tyrannical power?

 

I am saying my answer was correct in rergards to the question.

 

To establish a system of weight and measures? No. To force me and Bob down the road to use that standard of measure in our dealings, instead of a different one agreed to between us? Yes.

 

Well, fair play to you - though I differ with you and think your style of libertarianism is idealistic and unworkable, at least you are consistent.

 

I have 6 chickens & one rooster in my back yard. for two years nobody complained but as my next door neighbor moved toward retirement age & wanted to sell the house & move, it became an issue. He 1st started by calling the health department (9 times) saying chickens are unhealthy. The wife cleans out the coop every day & when the health agent came out, they complemented us & said it was the cleanest coop they ever saw. Next he said the coop was causing rats....of course no rats or trace of them were ever found. Next it was the noises of the rooster so we went to a mediation & we agreed we would put a tarp around where he lives at night to muffle the crowing & so we did that. A week later they called the cops again claiming they were not satisfied with the mediation decision. At that point I was po'd & told them to take me to court. I got a good lawyer & we actually won the case because they were violating our rights & harassing us. My advise, if you have to protect your rights, fight for them & get a good lawyer who knows constitutional law.....our bottom line is fight for your rights, we did & won.

 

Public property is not "open to all" for anything they want to do, and the operation of your lemonade stand in the public right of way may be an encumberance upon another's right of way. What if I wanted to set up in the same spot as you are? You have no more interest in it than I do, and your getting there first is irrelevant. It's ownership that's the issue. See? So, to protect another's right of way, your activity in the public right of way is regulated. The government is basically saying, yes, you may encumber upon another's right of way for this long for this amount of reimbursement to the public.

I work in an industry where I have contact with people from all over the world, many from third world countries. You should ask them about their freedoms.

No. It's not new, however, I will agree that it has gotten oppressive. The "lemonade stand" in the article, though, is not an example of such.

 

You need to return and read my answer as I did not say what you are saying. My answer is correct to the question asked. Your military training is flawed.

 

There are separate laws for blocking traffic. We do not need to charge people to sell their own stuff.

First come, first serve. What if someone wants to have a picnic in the park in the same place I do? Whoever gets there first, gets the spot. I guess according to you we need to draw a grid on the ground, and charge a "picnic" fee of 25 dollars, in order to keep such things orderly?

No, it is NOT irrelevant. This is how every other aspect of public property works. If my kid gets on the swing first at the park, he gets it: I guess we need to start charging the kids a five dollar "swing permit" fee, in order to control and designate who gets to swing where?

I believe I have sufficiently debunked this. It is the governments way of saying "we want money from you, and we want control. So pay us 500 dollars for a business license to sell your stuff."

I used to have a friend from Turkey that was CONSTANTLY pointing out all of the things they could do in Turkey, that were forbidden and regulated here.

Again, it is RIDICULOUS for the government to charge me money to sell my stuff in public areas, where anyone is allowed to set up picnics, preach, have get togethers, football games, etc., for free. There is simply no justifying your position that suddenly since I am selling something, that I suddenly have to pay the government for position. This is a clear infringement on my liberty.

Yes it IS new. The lemonade stand in the article IS an example of such. There is no reason why these people should not be able to sell their lemonade. It is a violation of the equal protection clause, to say that you can use a public area freely for YOUR activity, (whatever that may be), on a first come first serve basis, but that I have to pay to use it for MY chosen activity. That is oppression, and over stepping of the Government, plain and simple.

 

This ought to be good! :laugh:

 

>Doesn't matter; the question lies with "legal and moral."

If a post guard is required to shoot at a car which refuses to stop and the GI is not morally prepared to shoot then he should refuse the duty and take the consequences.

 

The original answer I gave was correct as to the question asked and the information given. It looks like the military has tied the hands of our boys and put them in a greater harms way them is needed. If a speeding vehicle was approaching a check point and showing signs of not stopping when it is clearly marked check point in a war zone and the duty officer or guard has to wait until fired on the take lethal action to stop the vehicle then the military training is flawed.
If that is the rules of engagement today then I would tell the military to find some foreign fighters to man their check point because I would not wear the uniform of any army that puts a higher price on the enemy's life then its own solders. What you are suggesting is flawed military training.

 

So you would break the rules, and stand against authority. Thank you for finally admitting it.

 

That is not what I said. I said I would not serve under such foolish rules. You need to read what is written.