That is the single diagnostic of liberalism: finding nobility in donating other people's money.

What the hell? The kid is learning about work and money and he has to buy the supplies (well, Mom does). Do the Girl Scouts have to take this kind of crap? I mean, Girl Scout Cookies are sold to benefit Girl Scouts, right? Jake's Lemonade should go to benefit Jake, and be dispensed as he sees fit. Christ on a sidecar.

If his proceeds or a portion thereof go to charity, it should be posted on his stand. If no such posting occurs, they should probably assume he's selling for himself.

The customers have a right to ask if he's giving the proceeds to a charity. And if so, to which one. They also reserve the right to withhold their custom if they don't like the answer. They also have the right to suggest that he give the proceeds to charity.

And he has the right to refuse to do so.

Since no one is doing anything wrong, I'm not sure what makes this event noteworthy, really. If he keeps the money for himself, then the customers are arrogant for suggesting he give to a worthy charity. If he were giving his money to the American Cancer Society, or some such, then he'd be lauded as a hero.

The proceeds should go to the Obama campaign. because the kid wouldn't be able to make a drop of lemonade without the benefits of Government.

Ungrateful twerp.

I think what makes it noteworthy is that the customers are arguing with him. They can ask, suggest, etc. He can say no. They can buy or not. However, the arguing and "keep asking" part (I'd call that insisting) is pushy at best.

I have seen local kids do bake sales/lemonade stands for local charities - in particular an animal rescue group. I'll swing by a neighborhood if I'm out just to stop at one of those because I want to encourage kids to think of others. That doesn't give me a right to tell them what to do with their money. Also, they clearly note that the proceeds are going to a specific charity.

A couple more thoughts. What if he was giving to a group that some people did NOT support (but say, actually did NOT want to support)? Maybe Planned Parenthood, to pick one we all know some people would find awkward.

A year or two ago, I got a newsletter from my electric company (remember, these are highly regulated because the nature of the business is monopolistic). About a third of it was about how much money they gave to supporting minority art or somesuch. I have no problem with "minority art" (whatever that is). However, our state regulates this company to strike a balance between a reasonable rate of return for shareholders and low electric rates for consumers. So what are they doing giving money away - to anybody??? That doesn't go toward either of the two things they are supposed to do (nor saving for upgrades/emergencies/cash or other normal business). It artificially increases the cost of electricity. We'd had several contentious rate increases, and while claiming they so desperately needed to increase rates, they're giving tons of money away! (I contacted the state public utility commission and complained).

I chalk it all up to this notion that corporations *have* to "give back" or they are evil. Every company is doing it to some extent. Just consider the notion of "giving back" requires the assumption that either 1.) you took or 2.) something was given to you. This is not necessarily the case. I happily "give" but I never "give back."

Collectivism is adopted by the mentally ill.

That's not your lemonade stand! Someone else made that! Those aren't your lemons, someone else grew those for you!

"I would say by the controlling and the greedy."

How many mentally balanced people do you know who truly believe it is okay to control other's lives?

I would say it's less about greed (they aren't asking for money to go to them) as it is about envy - or the FEAR of envy.

It's one thing to be controlling and to keep those boundaries within a five foot radius of yourself and your own family. It's quite another to view everyone else around you as extensions of yourself - people who are in no way obligated to you or you to them.

This type of self-centered, tyrannical, co-dependent, grandiose philosophy is rooted in collectivist/totalitarian ideas - and like moths to a flame, attracts those who identify with it's power and control. Mini-narsissistic dictators.

Mental illness.

(And this isn't just on the "left").

As an entrepreneur, I try to stop at all lemonade stands I see and purchase something...and then tell the kids how great it is to work for yourself.

If these stands were charity drives, I'd no longer stop.

I want to support free enterprise, not social work.

I've found that those who talk loudest about greed are just obsessed with what other people have, money or otherwise. Projection, in other words.

Question: How many of these "donate your earnings to charity" dimwits donate their paychecks to charity?

Answer: None. That's their money that they worked for.

The Liberal's motto: Do as I say, not as I do.

"Answer: None. That's their money that they worked for. "

They are motivated by the fear of malicious envy (begnin envy being the self motivator) and thereby force alturism on to others because they feel guilty about being at a financial advantage and lack of "giving back" to the community themselves. Like Isomber said, it's projection.

But here is the real kicker, not only are they projecting hypocrites, but they are actually encouraging malicious envy (class envy) - and discouraging of begnin envy (self motivating).

And if they are greedy, and think there is a limit to the amount of wealth in this world, which one do you think stifles the potential competition best?

Their own guilt of success and fear of envy is then projected on to others to keep the finger pointed away from them - and keep them in control and on top without having to admit (maybe even to themselves) THEY are the selfish ones.

I think these types of people are rotten, derranged, toxic, assholes.

Here's another angle, which I haven't seen addressed yet: Why were people buying lemonade at the child's stand in the first place? To slake their thirst at a reasonable price, or to encourage the child's enterprising spirit? If it's the latter reason, one could argue that purchasing the lemonade was a charitable act in itself. And if that's the case, people buying the lemonade might think their money ought to go towards something besides movie tickets.

Does that mean they have a point? Of course not. They paid their money, they got their lemonade, and that's that. If disposition of the profits was that important to them, they should have asked before they shelled out.

I agree with Olen's statement overall, but the headline on this is ridiculous. "People" are not "attacking" lemonade stands over this.

An undisclosed number of patrons have asked the kid whether he's not donating the money to charity, and supposedly they argue with him, but we don't know how or what they say. When I read pieces like this, I always suspect the frequency has been exaggerated in order to create fodder for the writer.

In case I wasn't clear earlier, I also would stop by a for-profit lemonade stand if I knew about it. Those just aren't usually as well advertised as the ones where the kid gives proceeds to charity, so I don't hear about them (I have to see them).

In any case, the child is getting a good lesson in business, thanks to the compassion-facists who are trying to bully him into giving his proceeds to charity. That is also a foreshadowing of what he will experience when he becomes an adult and owns a business.

About a third of it was about how much money they gave to supporting minority art or somesuch.

That's the utility buying the goodwill of politicians and regulators.

I wish utilities would find it important to buy my goodwill with lower rates, rebates, or reliable service.