What idiocy!

Yesterday, we were driving over to BF's sister's house, to grill and then to walk over to the beach for the fireworks, and on the way, we passed a cul de sac. The house closest to the street had a sign on the main road side that said "Lemonade - Drive thru!" and sure enough, there they were, right at the edge of their yard, next to their street! You could drive right by the kids' stand, get your lemonade (from the passenger side window), turn around in the cul de sac and be on your merry way! Turns out the girl selling the lemonade is the younger sister of one of my daughter's friends. (Yes, we bought some lemonade!)

Not surprised, aren't a lot of places outlawing bake sales with homemade goodies?

I guess you could do a workaround by giving away free lemonade with a suggested donation.

This is a fascinating case, much discussed at the Carpe Diem website.

Okay, should we allow commercial enterprise in public spaces, such as sidewalks, medians etc.? Or commercial enterprise in residential areas?

That means not only rosy-cheeked cute kids and lemonade stands, but fat guys selling burritos, people hustling recreational drugs, push-cart vendors hawking clothes and food.

I say yes--people should be able to operate small one-person, push-cart businesses on public property, in exchange for a reasonably priced license. Why even a license? So if someone is really a pill, you can yank their license. I also believe in legalizing all jitneys.

But remember, it won't all be cute kids and lemonade stands--it might be guys selling drugs outside your front yard. Prostitutes trolling. Your neighbor running a speakeasy in his garage. Oh, you want that outlawed? And where do you want to draw the line?

Most people who blab about being libertarians change their tune when you ask them can you run a brothel in the house next to theirs.

Um, I'm fine with the fat guy selling burritos. I'd be worried about a skinny guy selling burritos. Same goes for BBQ.

Look, when we were kids, we had Kool-Aid stands, lemonade stands, we put on plays and sold refreshments, NO PERMIT necessary. We were kids! Doing kid things! Nowadays, kids can't do kid things anymore without some asshole screwing it up for them! Why?? Who cares if a couple of kids make some spending money?? It's not like they'll be making a boatload of taxable money! Leave 'em the eff alone already!

Oh and BOTU?? Shut up! Brothels and lemonade stands ain't the same thing. And you know it!

Flynne--

Basically, you are saying that if commercial activity takes place in public or residential areas, and you approve of that activity, then it is okay. Ergo, cute kids can sell lemonade.

But fat guys cannot sell burritos (even to support themselves financially, or their families).

Let's be real libertarians, if we are going make honking noises like libertarians.

Actually, the argument for someone running a brothel is more viable--someone is trying to earn a living, stay off the government dole. Good on them, I say.

BOTU, it's NOT the same thing. Kids selling lemonade in the neighborhood is not the same thing as a fat guy selling burritos in the neighborhood, which is why they sell them from carts downtown!! There's a time and a place for everything, and you're trying to incorporate something where it shouldn't be in order to suggest that people should be allowed to do what they want, where they want. And that's bullshit and you know it. The point is, kids have been selling lemonade from neighborhood stands in front of their houses for years and years and years, and there has NEVER been a big stink raised about it until now. And you know why?? Because people KNOW kids don't make a boatload of money selling lemonade! They do it either for charity or to earn a little pocket jing. It's NOT the same damn thing as the fat guy with his burrito cart! And I know you know this, so again I say, shut up!

(How can you post such a good post on one thread and such idiocy on another??)

BOTU,

I think you need to be careful about imposing an extremist form of libertarianism. In fact, taking any political philosophy to its extreme is generally a bad idea.

While in some sense, libertarianism is about maximizing peoples freedom. There is still substantial room to discuss when and where those freedoms need to be limited so as not to encroach upon other peoples freedoms. In other words, libertarianism isn’t concerned about maximizing your personal freedom so much as it is concerned with maximizing the aggregate freedom of the population.

For example, just because people can and should be free to purchase aspirin from the local drug store, they should not be permitted to purchase morphine with the same sense of ease and freedom. The purpose of this is to limit the abuse of such chemicals to the detriment of the population at large. The historical freedom to purchase morphine at will was directly associated with several social problems that necessitated legislative restrictions to fix.

Similarly, just because children should be permitted to sell lemonade outside of their parents homes, this does not imply that it should be legal to host brothels at any residential location without restriction. Brothels have also been historically associated with social ills that necessitated legislative restrictions to fix.

As a result I think it is both legitimate and reasonable for any business with a historical record of resulting in social ills to demonstrate that those risks can be properly managed before they can be treated in the same manner as something like a lemonade stand.

The article states:

"A group of Maryland children recently got an unexpected civics lesson when they set up a lemonade stand outside the U.S. Open to raise money for pediatric cancer research."

Looks like it was a public area?

Ah, okay, biff, I see the difference. The question now becomes, How close to the U.S. Open was it? Was it within the confines of the venue itself? Was it creating competition for the venue lemonade sellers? Were there any lemonade sellers besides those kids?

I agree that the location in this particular case constitutes a very important factor.

Presumably, all the other vendors had to pay a price to be able to operate there. If that is the case and the children in question did not, it makes sense why a fine would be imposed.

From kids selling lemonade to brothels next door....

Wow! Slopes this steep and slippery need to be signed way in advance!

The kids in question were on a public roadside median. No businesses are licensed to operate there.

Some have noted there are safety concerns. If a truck ploughs thru the lemonade stand, then everyone asks why we had children doing dangerous work etc.

My point is that we have to be a nation of law, not men. If you do not like the law, then change the law. Make it legal to operate small, mobile businesses on medians. I like this idea.

I contend that public spaces should be open for businesses, and I choose not to regulate what type of businesses, as long as they are largely non-polluting (thus violating other people's rights).

In Thailand, you see push-cart vendors everywhere, jitneys, and sex for sale. Life goes on--and micro-entrepreneurs can operate. Due to lower overhead, goods are cheaper, living standards higher.

If you want to be a libertarian, then be a libertarian.

If you favor government regulation, then say so.

Some here favor government regulation. They do not want businesses operating in public spaces, such as sidewalks and medians. They believe the government can regulate us to a better life.

But don't say you are libertarians who favor government regulation. Unless you want to say ducks are really bananas.

I'm thirsty.

Prostitutes trolling

Why is that a bad thing?

Lujlp:

If you are a libertarian, prostitutes trolling is not a bad thing. Neither is polygamy, gambling, selling body parts (like your kidney),snorting coke, or windowed brothels in airports.

Most people talk the libertarian game; but get weak knees when it gets down and dirty.

What they mean to say is, "I am Republican, and I want those regulations I like, but not the other regulations."

Flynne,

So if I go to a public event, say Ohio State-Michigan football game, where over 100,000 fans are running around, your kids should be able to sell whatever they want, anywhere they want, just because they are kids, while some loser pays the university big bucks to park near the stadium? Other vendors pay the city big bucks to sell on the street near the stadium?

"Brothels have also been historically associated with social ills that necessitated legislative restrictions to fix."

I think it was the other way around.

The know better government shut down the brothels without addressing the need for the brothels. And the social ills started to emerge.

You must understand that not all men are able to ask a girl out for a date and eventually get laid. Some of men simply do not possess that skill. You cannot tell them die as a virgin. That is inhumane.

Also, we must acknowledge the need of old married men, whose wives always have headaches only at nights. On top of that, now, you can buy Viagra through internet. Then, make the prostitution illegal because it offends thumpers.

Then, social ills start to emerge related to illegal brothels. They are mainly associated with the girls, who are unable to get compensated fairly as there are no places to express their grievances.

I wish you guys would quit wasting your time debating with BOTU. He's a troll. All he ever does is repeat his same two or three talking points. And he does it in every thread. Debating with him is pointless because he will not acknowledge your arguments. Don't let your chains be yanked that easily.

Can I really have a brothel next door? 'Cause, gas is over four bucks a gallon now . . .

Just like in Monopoly, there was a bank error in my favor. They sent me a check, and in the fullness of time I went to my bank to put it into my account. I was second in line to use the ATM.

There was this . . . woman . . . at the machine. She had her phone pressed to her head and was busily chatting away with whomever about something trivial. I knew it was trivial, because I could hear her.

And I'm thinkin' that of all the places you could have your head up your ass and take more time than necessary to conduct your business and then get out of the way, the ATM just *has* to be in the top five. So I asked myself, "WWAD?"

I said, in a voice loud enough to get through, "You know we're waiting, right?"

She sped up some and started to attend to business, and as she left she tried to excuse herself by saying the machine was processing and that's what was taking so long. I did not grace her with a Oh, That's All Right.

"So I asked myself, "WWAD?""

I think she will get out of the line and go to bank. And she will ask the teller to void the check as the check does not belong to her.

So if I go to a public event, say Ohio State-Michigan football game, where over 100,000 fans are running around, your kids should be able to sell whatever they want, anywhere they want, just because they are kids, while some loser pays the university big bucks to park near the stadium? Other vendors pay the city big bucks to sell on the street near the stadium?

No, biff, that's not what I was saying. I wondered how close they were to the venue. Were they across the street on someone's lawn? All I wanted to know was where the kids were, what did they do that was wrong? I have no idea, because I wasn't there. IF, as BOTU says, they were on a median, I think that's wrong, and their parents were wrong to let them sell lemonade there. And where were their parents, anyway? Were those kids unsupervised? I mean, when we were selling lemonade or Kool-Aid or whatever, we were on our lawns, and someone's mother was usually close by, keeping an eye on things. As they should be. If these kids were without perental supervision, I would say their parents SHOULD pay a fine.

Here in LA, there's an entire WalMart for sale on the sidewalks east of MacArthur Park, not collecting sales tax, not paying rent, not insured. City does nothing about it. Some kid selling lemonade is the least of our problem
s.
And supervision by adults for selling lemonade?

I'd bet if you correlate some of the addresses for personal services, the rooms for on Craigslist and your nicer neighborhoods you'd be surprised how many women room mates aren't really feeling lonely at night.

But that is neither here, nor there. They are criminalizing innocent behavior.

There's nothing wrong with the points BOTU is trying to make. He's trying to point out - how do you write a regulation that makes it ok for kids to sell lemonade but at the same time restricts other activities? There are unintended consequences to every rule. I agree this sounds silly, and as long as they weren't blocking the street or otherwise being a public nuisance the county should have just been sensible and turned a blind eye. But to immediately cry "overturn the regulation" without checking what it is, what other impacts it will have, what other businesses will be unrestricted, is just stupid. The op-ed doesn't address any of this.

Maybe it was a generic regulation that businesses require a permit to allow the county to check that the activity is suitable for the area - in which case it may well apply to brothels too? For the record, I doubt it, it's most likely a food safety issue, but there's no information in the op-ed to indicate one way or the other.

I agree this case sounds dumb, and I agree completely with minimising regulation. But show me the regulation in question, and show me how you would redraft it. Until then, I'm unimpressed with immediate calls for "get rid of it".

I'll put my hand up for next-door brothels though. Hell, I'll host it in my house for a cut ;)

I actually agree with BOTU's general point about being a nation of laws, not men. However, I think there's a foolish consistency here (that wasn't meant as a personal comment, by the way). If we can no longer regulate or outlaw illegal drugs or prostitution without shutting down the bake sales and lemonade stands, I think that's indicative of a failure to be a functioning society.

People already sell drugs on the street where I live--I wish we had lemonade stands.

Look, part of the reason we let kids open lemonade stands without a license, while adults have to go through a few legal hoops first, is because there is a huge difference in the ability to earn, and the potential to learn.

Adults start businesses to make a living. They've already learned all their major life lessons for the most part.

We don't require that kids get a business license and whatnot, because as children we want them to learn lessons. The kid who learns about earning money by opening a lemonade stand is the same kid that grows up independent and capable of seeing to themselves. They learn about making and managing money, they learn about saving, they learn the lessons they need to in childhood, to prep for adulthood.

The fat guy trying to operate a burrito stand doesn't have life lessons to learn from his experience, his childhood is over. Adult rules apply to him, adult laws apply to him.

For children to be expected to comply with adult rules and regulations for restaurant safety and zoning regulations/licensing while selling lemonade, we have to endow children with the comprehension level of adults. As anyone with a brain knows, that is patently ridiculous.

When I was a boy of 10, I wanted to have a t.v. in my room, my parents told me to save and earn for it. So I went around the neighborhood looking for work. I watered my neighbors plants for a neighbor that was traveling. I didn't get a license or certification. I did some landscaping work with another neighbor, but he didn't file payroll taxes on me and I didn't file income taxes. I worked as a babysitter for a few hours so a neighbor could go out for afternoon coffee, and I didn't have a CPR certification. I sold lemonade and invisible ink (made out of lemon juice) but I didn't have a license for my stand at the park. Eventually I had saved almost $200, and I bought my television.

I had 0 government intervention, and I learned important lessons about self sufficiency and saving. I now own my own Limited Liability Corporation, I have significant savings, and I manage my finances and resources in such a way that I always have left over funds.

All of that began with the lessons I learned in childhood.

What could I have possibly gained, what could anyone have possibly gained, by fining these kids for their lemonade stand? What lesson could they learn, except to not try because some fuckwad will shut them down?

BOTU, I appreciate your concern for slippery slope, but no society can thrive if they can't tell the difference between a children's game and an adult business.

"We don't require that kids get a business license and whatnot, because as children we want them to learn lessons. "

Oh, they learned a lesson all right.

I think changing the nature of the neighborhood's intended use is certainly a concern for the community and reasonable to regulate.

It's unreasonable to stop lemonade stands and bake sales between neighbors.

Following BOTU's model, though: going around the cul-de-sac for some blow, then into the garage speakeasy for a bump, over to the Colonial two-story for a roll in the hay, followed by a stop at the infested burrito cart for some much-needed albeit questionable protein and finally the lemonade stand to wash it down -- probably not within the intended use of the neighborhood.

I don't see the Libertarian ideal trampled regulating this.

For children to be expected to comply with adult rules and regulations for restaurant safety and zoning regulations/licensing while selling lemonade

I just knew someone would make this argument. So write the rule to say it doesn't apply to someone under 16? 18? 14? Draw a line please. Who will it apply to or not?

Then watch fat burrito seller set his kids up on the lawn to do the selling while he "supervises" them. Oops, unintended consequences again.

So, how do you fix it? All BOTU was saying was whenever you get a case like this, everyone jumps up and down saying "get rid of this stupid law", without proposing a way of fixing it. He was not, if you read carefully, advocating the laissez faire libertarian model. Quite the opposite.

Then watch fat burrito seller set his kids up on the lawn to do the selling while he "supervises" them. Oops, unintended consequences again.

So, how do you fix it? All BOTU was saying was whenever you get a case like this, everyone jumps up and down saying "get rid of this stupid law", without proposing a way of fixing it. He was not, if you read carefully, advocating the laissez faire libertarian model. Quite the opposite.

Yes, exactly. Thank you for noticing.

"So, how do you fix it? All BOTU was saying was whenever you get a case like this, everyone jumps up and down saying "get rid of this stupid law","

What was stupid was not the law itself, but the application of the law in a doctrinaire manner. Some principles: The purpose of licensing food establishments is, in priority order: (1) to raise revenue, and (2) to try to ensure food safety. Let's address the second one first. We all hear about the dangers of food poisoning from bake sales and pot-luck dinners, but guess what? For most incidents of mass food poisoning since about 1950, the vector has been licensed restaurants and mass-market groceries. Humans know, from centuries of experience, that foods like cakes and cookies and lemonade are unlikely to be vectors for food poisoning. Further, the types of food poisoning that are most likely to occur in a pot-luck dinner usually result from things that happen when food is left out too long, but most of these types of poisoning can be detected by smell. If the potato salad smells off, don't eat it! Simple. So there is little or no public health benefit from trying to regulate lemonade stands or bake sales.

As for the revenue... do you really want to advocate taxing an 8-year-old's lemonade stand that's only going to be in operation for an hour or two? Or the church bake sale? Even if we were to attempt to do so, it's an all-cash business, so the tax authorities will spend a lot of time and effort chasing phantoms. And imagine the poor kids trying to wade through the typical mountains of legal mumbo-jumbo to get a business license, comply with zoning regs, get their stand inspected, etc etc. For one thing, the business license itself would cost them more than they'd ever make off of sales. The purpose of these things is to teach the kids about business. If we make them go through all this, we'll teach them a lesson all right, but not the lesson we intended.

"He's trying to point out - how do you write a regulation that makes it ok for kids to sell lemonade but at the same time restricts other activities?"

Guys, this is just ridiculous - AND there is a legal precedent!

The Treasury Department ALLOWS a private citizen to sell her gun to whomever she wants, without the Form 4473 and FBI permission, so long as she is not "in the business". The gun seller must not buy guns for the purpose of selling them. This is in Treasury regulations, enforced by the BATFE.

Kids are not legal adults. They cannot participate in contracts, etc., and so it is easy to see what a commercial enterprise might be. When the lemonade stand becomes a burden to the neighborhood, the Sheriff can also shut it down at will - or tell a complaining neighbor to back off and let the kids finish the day.

I object to the idea that the thug and the valedictorian are indistinguishable. Make the effort!

But now, we've got asshole teenagers who have to make it suck for the kids selling the lemonade!!

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2011/07/07/Lemonade-stand-robbed-by-teens/UPI-29561310058857/?spt=mps&or=5