It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Is it about money? Maybe, but probably not.
What about zoning? What about health concerns and sanitation? What about fair competition to others that did get licensed? What about liability insurance for the location?
There are reasons we have these laws. Suppose Alex's Lemonade Stand existed right next door to you? Was just a nice litte lemonade stand for a good cause, and then it become a phenomenon and thousands of people were lining up everyday blocking your residential road. Is it still ok?
What if Mom gets busy, and the kids make their own lemonade, and they run out of lemons, but as kids, they substitute Lemon Fresh Pledge instead? Seems harmless enough, smells great, but what about the people that get sick or die?
What if they are in their front yard, and a sprinkler head is broken, or the top on the water meter is loose and a nice person steps in it and twists a knee and needs surgery? Homeowner's insurance decides not to cover it, because it was due to running an unauthorized and unlicensed business, and the poor injured person doesn't have health insurance? Who pays for the surgery? Did they sell enough lemonade for that?
Sure, the cops are overzealous, it seems harmless enough, but people supported the making of these restrictions for a reason, so we can't all of a sudden decide to pick and choose who to enforce them upon.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools
A "business" is required to be licensed and insured or bonded. Some school kids are not. What good does it do to sue some kids when their family is already upside down in a mortgage and two car payments? There is nothing there to sue for. This is the reason for the requirements.
The same goes for zoning. It is there for a reason. There is only a certain amount of police presence, there is only a certain amount of ingress and egress. There is only a certain amount of parking. Don't the neighbors have rights also?
If someone gets sick or dies from the lemonade, suing a family into oblivion doesn't bring back a loved one.
Like I said before, I actually agree with you, we are eroding our civil liberties, and I personally do not agree with these laws, but the majority of the popoulation has approved the need for regulations, and the officers are just enforcing the existing laws. The cops are not the bad guys here, and neither are the kids, and neither are the neighbors, or the customers. The bad guys are the ones that ruined the system with frivolous lawsuits and cries to the government for nanny laws.
I have to admit, I often use this excuse. I do some things in my job I don't often agree with, but we are enforcing the statutes as written. If someone wants to change the statutes, they need to contact their legislator, not the officers enforcing the laws. It is a lame excuse, but I also need my job!
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
so shouldn't we then turn our attention to the lawmakers ?
the potus and the police are always on trail it seems, but congress gets a free ride
Originally posted by Danbones
when does Jon Corzine get charged for his little lemonade swindle?
or are the copes still rented out to him and his cronies for 35 bucks and hour
and NY city still on the hook for any liabilities incured?
By now its clear to all, or should be, that these people cannot operate a lemonade stand let alone the largest economy and strongest nation on earth. Then again, someone in their own administration would shut down that lemonade stand anyway. Once again, ‘The Keystone Kops’ are at it again.
Originally posted by MeesterB
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If they were committed to the cause then they wouldn't have charged. No one has sympathy for the guilty when they flagrantly break the law. They should've pushed them on a technicality. It doesn't make for a moving clip unless you get arrested I guess.
Have a problem with the injustice of vending permits? Fine, civil disobedience is alright i guess, but c'mon.
Edit: I wonder if they got strip searched. I hear that's been given the green light.edit on 4/12/2012 by MeesterB because: (no reason given)
No, it's 48 years of living on a planet watching people leave their garbage behind.
I took the pre-med track in college, and I'm pretty handy at identifying tissue under a microscope and naming the bones of the body. Would you prefer that I, or someone who is actually qualified, perform surgery on you? Granted, some people just barely get their licenses to practice medicine, but at least we are guaranteed that they have a bare minimum of medical knowledge.
Have you ever been to a county fair?
Originally posted by freakshowfatty
reply to post by OldCorp
The thing is is that they were using it AS a FORM of free speech and 1st amendment says "no laws"
I'd be like I can save you!
Darling, it isn't about you.
I would compromise your freedom to protect the majority of women.
I think our country was founded upon the idea of majority rules.
Section 4 - Republican government The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
"Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
I believe . . . that the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society . . .
Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations: but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes. If we consider the peculiar situation of the United States, and what are the sources of that diversity of sentiment which pervades its inhabitants, we shall find great danger to fear, that the same causes may terminate here, in the same fatal effects, which they produced in those republics. This danger ought to be wisely guarded against.
If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice? to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations. And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world. To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission of some limitation of the right of the majority to exercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen . . . In popular governments, minorities constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies . . .