Is That Legal?

I can't even begin to count the number of times someone voiced a thought or expressed an idea or a dream they had that they wanted to accomplish and would follow with the question; "Is that legal?" In researching law, I can't tell you how many sites I've stumbled across that will ask legal experts if the business they want to start up is legal, and what's worse, is the legal advise given.

Always, when addressing whether a business idea is legal or not, these legal experts will inform the questioner about the licensing schemes they must apply for and the various codes, ordinances and regulations they should bone up on before beginning their start-up business.

How can it possibly be good for the economy, that anyone who would dare attempt to begin a business of their own, should first research into all the various reasons why they shouldn't? How is it good for the economy that local cities, towns and villages will impose licensing schemes on innocuous business ventures? How is it that in order to gain a license from these dubious license granter's that first one must register with the I.R.S. and obtain a federal tax I.D. number before a single cent of profit was earned? How does such collusion between local governments and the federal tax collection agency even come close to legality itself?

It has come to the point where people will ask if starting their own book store is legal. If starting their own shoe store is legal. If going to business for themselves is legal, and fewer and fewer people each day bother to ask if the licensing schemes, the ridiculous codes of regulations, the myriad of ordinances that endeavor to prohibit self interest and efforts to build a business of ones own, is legal.

I'd like to live free and unencumbered by government, is that legal?

I would like to flourish and prosper without gaining permission from government to do so, is that legal?

I would like to raise a family of my own and teach them the values I hold dear, is that legal?

I would like to voice my opinion where ever I choose, is that legal?

I would like to worship in the spiritual manner I choose befitting, is that legal?

I would like to be happy, is that legal?

There's nothing wrong with resaerching the law, to make sure what you intend to do, is in fact, "legal".

It's just due-diligence and common sense.

Originally posted by MajesticJax
There's nothing wrong with resaerching the law, to make sure what you intend to do, is in fact, "legal".

It's just due-diligence and common sense.

Agreed, there is however something wrong with questioning the legality of what common sense would tell you is a natural right to do.

Yeah, it's all made a hassle. That's why if I start a good business I'll sell it for royalties. Then sit back and collect with no more hassles in running a good business.

Originally posted by Tormentations
Yeah, it's all made a hassle. That's why if I start a good business I'll sell it for royalties. Then sit back and collect with no more hassles in running a good business.

Wait a minute...is that legal?

May be a hassle but in many cases these laws work for you, when you start a business and want to name it Me DBA: Jane Doe you have to have do fictitious name search for the state and country so you are not stepping on some ones toes. I wouldn't want to use Hertz Rent A Car for instance, there would be a law suit against you in a blink of an eye.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Agreed, there is however something wrong with questioning the legality of what common sense would tell you is a natural right to do.

You know the problem with common sense, right? It's not so common.

Honestly, I don't see any problem with anyone questioning the legality of things before they jump head first into something, as it can avoid major hassles and problems in the future.

In fact, I think we need more people questioning the legality of things. Maybe it could have helped avoid certain illegal wars and economic meltdowns.

Originally posted by Aquarius1
May be a hassle but in many cases these laws work for you, when you start a business and want to name it Me DBA: Jane Doe you have to have do fictitious name search for the state and country so you are not stepping on some ones toes. I wouldn't want to use Hertz Rent A Car for instance, there would be a law suit against you in a blink of an eye.

The example of "fictitious business names is just one example of how these so called "laws" work against an individual and not for them. If my name is Hertz and I want to operate a car rental agency, there is nothing that can legally stop me from using my name as a part of the businesses title, and why would I want to take the name of Hertz Rent a Car when that name is clearly being used by a competitor?

It could be argued that some might want to do so in order to cash in on Hertz obvious success, but this would be a clear trademark infringement. However, if I am John Q. Hertz and I wish to use my name in my car rental agency business, what would stop me from naming that business The Other Hertz Car Rental Agency, or The Hertz of a Different Color Car Rental Agency?

In order for Hertz to sue me, they would have to reasonably argue that by naming my business The Other Hertz Car Rental Agency, that this has created actual confusion for potential clients. There are many other factors that a judge would take into account regarding trademark infringements, but for the purposes of the example you gave, it would hinge on the confusion factor, and it should be clear that by naming my car rental agency the way I have, I have endeavored to distinguish myself from Hertz Car Rental and not capitalize upon it.

Even further, is the dubious assertion that I would have to declare a DBA in order to do this. Why would I have to? Why couldn't I just open up the business and name it after me, showing full consideration to that other guy Hertz? It is telling that DBA's are otherwise known as "fictitious business titles" when using your example coupled with my example, the whole purpose of naming my business would be to rely upon my actual name as opposed to a fictitious one.

Even further still, the intent of this thread was not to challenge or question valid laws such as trademarks, copyrights and patents, which are clearly in place to protect property, but the point of this thread is to question the more dubious "laws" that endeavor to prohibit the pursuit of property, or greatly restrict it.

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Agreed, there is however something wrong with questioning the legality of what common sense would tell you is a natural right to do.

You know the problem with common sense, right? It's not so common.

Honestly, I don't see any problem with anyone questioning the legality of things before they jump head first into something, as it can avoid major hassles and problems in the future.

In fact, I think we need more people questioning the legality of things. Maybe it could have helped avoid certain illegal wars and economic meltdowns.

The point I am trying to make is that if people spent more time questioning the legality of increasing legislation they wouldn't have to spend so much time questioning the legality of their actions.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The point I am trying to make is that if people spent more time questioning the legality of increasing legislation they wouldn't have to spend so much time questioning the legality of their actions.

The public in general has no grasp of how laws work or even how to interpret them. Add the fact that most people let politics get in the way of those interpretations and it only gets worse. We had a recent example of that during the so called "health care debate."

Whether legislation is increasing or not, in my view, is not the problem—it's the quality of the legislation. Most legislation is permissive and water-downed from the start to accommodate or benefit certain groups of people or interests. In some areas for example, such as the financial, I think we actually desperately need more regulations and legislation, not less.

You're asking too much of a public that, in general, remains ignorant about most concepts of society, Government and their laws.

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The point I am trying to make is that if people spent more time questioning the legality of increasing legislation they wouldn't have to spend so much time questioning the legality of their actions.

The public in general has no grasp of how laws work or even how to interpret them. Add the fact that most people let politics get in the way of those interpretations and it only gets worse. We had a recent example of that during the so called "health care debate."

Whether legislation is increasing or not, in my view, is not the problem—it's the quality of the legislation. Most legislation is permissive and water-downed from the start to accommodate or benefit certain groups of people or interests. In some areas for example, such as the financial, I think we actually desperately need more regulations and legislation, not less.

You're asking too much of a public that, in general, remains ignorant about most concepts of society, Government and their laws.

I respectfully disagree and argue that you are being far to flippant and dismissive of that public. Laws are not supposed to be difficult to understand, and the current health-care debate only illustrates my point. There just is no Constitutional authority for Congress to legislate health-care in the way they are attempting to do so, and it was evident that a large amount of the public understood this.

Your advocacy of more regulations that would only add to the confusion is yet another example of how legislation is the problem and not law. There are certain types of businesses such as the creation, transport and disposal of toxic materials that are clearly with in the scope of jurisdiction of government regulation, but selling books and making shoes and opening up grocery stores are not.

Let's limit the amount of legislation to that which is actually with in the scope of a legislature's jurisdiction and let's not look down our noses at the people and presume they can't tell the difference between what is and what is not with in their jurisdiction.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
There just is no Constitutional authority for Congress to legislate health-care in the way they are attempting to do so, and it was evident that a large amount of the public understood this.

The public only understands preconceived notions provided to them by the TV.

Where were those same people protesting the warrantless wiretaps? Where were those people protesting torture? The TV didn't tell them to protest, so they didn't.

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
There just is no Constitutional authority for Congress to legislate health-care in the way they are attempting to do so, and it was evident that a large amount of the public understood this.

The public only understands preconceived notions provided to them by the TV.

Where were those same people protesting the warrantless wiretaps? Where were those people protesting torture? The TV didn't tell them to protest, so they didn't.

Yet even more flippancy and dismissal of people? Where were those people protesting warrant-less wiretaps? They were there and many of them are those very same people who are now called "teabaggers" and "Constitutional nut jobs" by many, and they are on T.V. today, not because T.V. told them to unite, but on the contrary, they united because of their profound disgust with the so called "Patriot Act", their disgust for torture and ill conceived wars, and their disgust for an intrusive government. They were there protesting then, just as they do now, but where were you?

Do you only know of these protester's now, because they have gained a certain fame from T.V.? Do you smugly imagine they just suddenly popped out of the woodwork's only after some pundit on television told them to do so? If this is the case then it is understandable why you hold such disrespect for the intelligence of people, as you are merely imposing your own self worth upon others. I hope this is not the case, and instead you have allowed your own emotions to cloud your judgment momentarily, and that you are capable of understanding that the protest movements so visible today, did not gain that visibility by overnight efforts.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Where were those people protesting warrant-less wiretaps? They were there and many of them are those very same people who are now called "teabaggers" and "Constitutional nut jobs" by many

Let me make clear that I've only referred to the teabaggers, specifically. I'm quite aware there have always been protest movements, but I only addressed the teabaggers. As you know, the tea party protests are a recent movement.

Having defined exactly what I meant and mean, I have to say that, quiet frankly, I didn't see any teabaggers protesting any of those things I mentioned.

I did, however, see certain groups that are disdained by most teabaggers (and especially their promoters), such as the ACLU, protest and fight against the Patriot Act, undetermined detainment and torture, among other issues, long before the teabaggers even started thinking about making posters of Obama with Hitler's mustache.

Do you smugly imagine they just suddenly popped out of the woodwork's only after some pundit on television told them to do so?

I'm not dismissing those that were protesting other illegal Government measures long before the "health care debate," but those people aren't teabaggers. Again, the tea party protests are a recent movement.

and that you are capable of understanding that the protest movements so visible today, did not gain that visibility by overnight efforts.

The health care bill is hardly the worst, most rights-infringing measure Congress and the US Government has tried to implement in recent times, and yet, it was by far the one that received, and continues to receive, the most publicity and air time.

I will applaud and support all movements that fight for people's rights and upholding the law and Constitution, for the sake of those laws and rights. In my opinion I would be making a mockery of those movements if I considered the teabaggers to be a protest movement of the same nature.

As for the topic at hand, I humbly agree with the fact that the regulations demote the creation of business in our country. Just last January I opened up my own business to repair computers. I had been repairing computers out of my home for ages, however, when I decided to make and office space and actually name that business, that is where I got discouraged the most.

Even after all the paperwork, I still don't know if I am running 100% legal, as I didn't quite understand everything that was thrown at me. I suppose that is what I get for being right out of college and becoming an entrepreneur.

The business I created is a side business. It was never intended to be my sole source of income. The main goal is to provide my small community with affordable computer repair. All the money I earn from the business goes towards advertising, rent, and monthly business expenditures.

A portion of the law that does not work in my favor, is the fact that legally, I am not allowed to keep my business if I fail to make a certain percent profit after three years. Why is that? Because reporting losses or breaking even does not require me to pay into the government. While I do see myself earning a profit after two more years regardless, this is just another annoying law that shouldn't be in affect. I should be able to spend and waste my own money however I see fit to do so, without permission from anybody else.

reply to post by converge


Thanks for your more considered reply, and it is heartening to find somethings we can agree on rather than disagree. That said, your insistence on calling the Tea Party Protesters "teabaggers" reveals how you have clearly been influenced by television as those protester's do not call themselves "teabaggers", but they are called this by many pundits on television and in several websites. Were you told to call them "teabaggers", I wonder? Certainly it wasn't you who coined this term was it?

Your own understanding of that Tea Party movement also reveals how much you have been influenced by what television has told you to think, or at the very least, what those websites you rely upon for information have told you to think. The Tea Party movement is an outgrowth of many frustrated people who have been angry at the federal government and its steady march towards usurpation since Bill Clinton was in office at least, and some of them were actually disgusted with the federal government as far back as George Bush Sr.'s Presidency.

The Tea Party movement is filled with members from both major political parties feeling they have been marginalized by those parties and feeling betrayed by them as well. I am not myself a member of this Tea Party movement, I only defend them against your limited view of them, having known many who are now a part of them, and knowing their politics as far back as George Bush Sr.'s Presidency.

Your beliefs about what the Tea Party movement is about and how it came about can't possibly be based upon studied research or sound experience, but let us focus on what we can agree on. It is agreed, to a certain degree, that the current health care debacle is hardly the worst usurpation of government intrusion, as there are many usurpation's such as the creation of the Federal Reserve, and other administrative agencies that came long before this current health care debate.

That said, you claim a willingness to applaud "all" movements that fight for peoples rights and upholding the law and the Constitution, (which by the way is the same thing as law), but then turn around and claim you would make a mockery of those movements if you were to acknowledge the Tea Party movement as being one of them. Deny ignorance my friend and make the effort to come and better know the history and development of that movement, you just might find yourself willing to applaud them.

reply to post by gwydionblack


Gwydion I applaud your entrepreneurial nature and wish you the best of success. I also entreat you to consider what is law and what is legislation merely pretending to be law. All legislation, statutes, codes, and ordinances are not law, they are evidence of law. If it is law, then it is self evident and works to establish justice, which is done so by protecting the rights of individuals. Consider this in three years time if success has not yet graced its knowledge upon you. That said, I am rooting for your success to come much quicker.

I think it is funny how you managed to criticize various "licencing schemes" where the intent clearly is to prevent actual harm ("Why, yes Mr. IRS man, I did open this business yesterday.") ("I am sorry, you got sick from eating my sandwich, but nobody forced you to eat it, right? do you want a coupon?") and yet manage to defend copyright and patents! Because those 2 actually are "licensing schemes" Good intentions? Yes, they are meant to encourage innovation by guaranteeing a droit de auteur, but are they doing a good job at it? I don't think anybody outside the publishing industry would say "yes, they do"

Originally posted by debunky
I think it is funny how you managed to criticize various "licencing schemes" where the intent clearly is to prevent actual harm ("Why, yes Mr. IRS man, I did open this business yesterday.") ("I am sorry, you got sick from eating my sandwich, but nobody forced you to eat it, right? do you want a coupon?") and yet manage to defend copyright and patents! Because those 2 actually are "licensing schemes" Good intentions? Yes, they are meant to encourage innovation by guaranteeing a droit de auteur, but are they doing a good job at it? I don't think anybody outside the publishing industry would say "yes, they do"

How can you reasonably call the protection of intellectual property a licensing scheme? A license by definition is the grant or permission to something not legal. I think it is funny that you parenthetically use the I.R.S. as an example to justify licensing schemes since that tax collection agency was formed to collect "personal income" taxes. I also find it hysterical that you further parenthetically use a restaurant or sandwich shop as another example of licensing schemes suggesting that without them people would not get sick presumably from food poisoning. Do you honestly believe that is the case? Have you never heard of a licensed restaurant that served tainted food?

Because the idea of "intellectual property" itself is ludicrous. It was invented by publishers in the 19th century to achieve monopolies. (why do you think copyrights on books live a lot longer than their authors?)

And yes, you are right: there would be less health code violations if we didn't have a health code. Also if we didn't have "intellectual property" there would be less piracy.
But do you think our food would be cleaner without regulations?