"I Don't Make the Laws I Just Enforce Them"

reply to post by rickymouse

Honestly, If you have a business that's taken you years to build and sucked the life out of you for years, why would you want some person to cut into your profits that pays no taxes on his income and hasn't any overhead at risk or any employees to support.

This is a fallacious argument. First of all, no member in this site - unless the Secretary Treasurer of the The United States is a member here - has any lawful authority to assess any other persons "income" tax liability than their own. The same applies to all state and local taxes, except the authority to asses tax liability then belongs to state treasurers or some local official. My point is this: You are presuming that even the individuals who've had businesses that have taken years to build and sucked the life out of them for years are actually liable for some tax for this. However, I know of no tax, local, state, or federal that names "life sucking business" as a taxed activity.

If an individual has assessed their own liability regarding a tax, and has determined they owe a tax, this does not give them any lawful authority to assess other individuals tax liability, nor does it give that person some lawful authority to insist that government must (presumably out of fairness) make everyone else liable for the same tax. Taxation is not fair, never has been fair, and has nothing at all to do with fairness.

Further, a business that has high overhead does not have any lawful authority to insist that other businesses must now assume the same high overhead. The sort of regulatory schematics you are advocating is corporatism not capitalism. Corporations, by and large, tend to revile capitalism and free market principles and have used the most unfortunate 14th Amendment, along with Congress' defining a corporation as a "person" - it is emphatically false that the SCOTUS made corporations a "person", Congress did that - to advocate the same sort of legal shenanigans you are advocating. However, what is "legal" is not necessarily lawful.

It is not lawful to assassinate another person. Yet, fictionally James Bond has been given a "license to kill", and factually Congress has deemed it "wise" to grant the Commander in Chief the same license, but these legal maneuvers do not make the action lawful, merely legal. Plunder is a crime, unless your a communist or socialist and then suddenly a simple act of legislation making plunder legal is all that is necessary, the law be damned.

Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law at best, and at worst it is flat out unlawful. All law is natural. It is simple, true, universal, and absolute. You have highlighted, by pointing to an inherent non-universality of zoning, licensing, and tax schemes, the problem with placing legality above law. If a vendor of lemonade stand needs no license to sell lemonade, then neither does those chain lemonade stands, where the employees are forced to wear gaudy and audacious hats and aprons, in food courts of malls across America, need a license to sell lemonade.

It has been our most imprudent acquiescence to bogus licensing schemes and other regulatory schemes, generally out of expedience, that has led us down this road where now children have their lemonade stands shut down, and more and more individuals are being drug into a penal system for violating dubious acts of legislation. There was a time when there were mostly just Sheriff's enforcing law, and most people would file verified complaints against aggressors, and criminals who had caused them injury. Now, very few even know what a verified complaint is, including some Sheriff's.

Arguing that it is only fair to trample upon the rights of some individuals because other individuals willingly surrendered their rights is just plain fallacious.

reply to post by QuietInsanity

It should be okay for everyone. As long as they are working hard or providing a legitimate service, there really shouldn't be a problem here.

So, would it be ok for one of these cash for gold places, or a title loan shop, or a head shop, or a questionable massage parlor moved in next door to you in your quiet little neighborhood?

People move away from the commercial areas of town, and into the residential areas for a reason. With no zoning, and no licensing, and no insurance, then a half-ass business with low-class clientele can move in right next to your 3BR/2BA ranch house, and they can park their cars all up and down the public street, and they can operate at all hours of the day and night.

Maybe instead of a title loan shop, maybe it is a saw mill? Or a boat manufacturing plant? Have you ever smelled a plant that makes fiberglass bodies? What about a shiitake mushroom warehouse? Ever smelled one of those?

I'm a Ron Paul fan, and a staunch conservative to the point I want to legalize prostitution and hemp and its cousins, and I want a truly free market, but I still understand it will never be 100% free.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by QuietInsanity

 

It should be okay for everyone. As long as they are working hard or providing a legitimate service, there really shouldn't be a problem here.

So, would it be ok for one of these cash for gold places, or a title loan shop, or a head shop, or a questionable massage parlor moved in next door to you in your quiet little neighborhood?

People move away from the commercial areas of town, and into the residential areas for a reason. With no zoning, and no licensing, and no insurance, then a half-ass business with low-class clientele can move in right next to your 3BR/2BA ranch house, and they can park their cars all up and down the public street, and they can operate at all hours of the day and night.

Maybe instead of a title loan shop, maybe it is a saw mill? Or a boat manufacturing plant? Have you ever smelled a plant that makes fiberglass bodies? What about a shiitake mushroom warehouse? Ever smelled one of those?

I'm a Ron Paul fan, and a staunch conservative to the point I want to legalize prostitution and hemp and its cousins, and I want a truly free market, but I still understand it will never be 100% free.

You missed the part later on in my post where I said that while regulation was necessary, it needs to have more common sense. If a business becomes big enough where it disrupts it's neighbors then it does need to move.

A problem is, what if a business is specifically designed to be run in a residential community, for the good of that residential community. Say a babysitting service, or someone who cuts hair for their neighbors in their own home. How about a small lemonade stand set up on a jogging path to help joggers make their run easier? None of those cause any disruption, and yet, you're saying they should have to move their businesses just because they get paid when it not only is causing no disruption whatsoever, but also helps the community and would cause inconvenience for said communtiy if it were to be moved? How does that make any sense?

I can see the regulatons being useful, but there needs to be descretion on how it is applied, and it seems to be going further and further away from fairness and common sense. That's a problem.

reply to post by QuietInsanity


I agree with you.

I think in most cases the police turn a blind eye on things like a child's lemonade stand. I think this originally became an issue when some kids set up on a major corner during the Masters event? OR something like that, and then it went viral.

If the police were just driving around looking to harass folks, it would be wrong, but if someone called in to complain about a kids lemonade stand, then that is a problem with the society at large, not the police.

reply to post by getreadyalready

So, would it be ok for one of these cash for gold places, or a title loan shop, or a head shop, or a questionable massage parlor moved in next door to you in your quiet little neighborhood?

No, it would not be okay if business began moving into a quiet little residential neighborhood of privately owned property by private individuals, and here is where zoning ordinances can have value, but that value is in the protection of the right to property. It is arguable that businesses moving into a quiet little residential neighborhood would decrease the value of residential property, and the owners of that property have the right to protect the value of their property.

However, there are valid criticism of zoning ordinances as well:

Much criticism of zoning laws comes from those who see the restrictions as a violation of property rights. It has been argued that zoning boards and city councils can too easily strip property owners of their right to unencumbered use of their land. It has also been argued that zoning laws work against economic efficiency and therefore hinder development in a free economy. A poor zoning restriction could hinder the optimal efficient usage of a given area. Even without any zoning restrictions, a landfill, for example, would likely gravitate to cheaper land rather than being placed in a residential area. Also, strict zoning laws can get in the way of creative developments like mixed-use buildings and can even stop harmless activities like yard sales

Even so, in regards to this thread it should be pointed out that the National Mall is public property and has nothing at all to do with your argument. I did, however, star your post just because I recognize that you are an ally in the fight for freedom, and we as allies can certainly disagree over policy issues.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by HandyDandy

 

That won't happen to me, I've posted earlier what capacity I work in. I also hate the NDAA, and if you look at my thread history, I have posted some injustices happening right here in my little part of the state, but you have to accept the fact that enforcing a zoning law is not sending someone to Gitmo or a gas chamber? Sure, it is a slippery slope, but it isn't that slippery. Those two things are at totally opposite ends of the spectrum.

To an extent, I agree. however, you have to admit that this staged lemonade protest was in response to the recent idiocy where kids were being harassed and shutdown by cops for running a lemonade stand. Or in protest in general. They aren't protesting the inability to run a lemonade stand, they are protesting over-regulation and police-state-like controls

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Evidently you have not owned a small business. It's hard work and long hours. It has big startup costs spread out over years. You have to like your work or it is not worth it, hopefully the business will take off and your risk will be worth it.

Kids having a lemonade stand is not a threat. The problem stems in that someone else will see this and start selling all sorts of things on the street and soon there will be five people setting up shop on the street. Each stand will use the first stand as precedence to justify their action. It heats up to a big mess and the legit small business closes up shop and lays off it's employees. Now there is no legit business to service the area for a while and laws are passed to not allow stands in the area.

I am licensed to build homes. I have no problem with a handyman doing small jobs but some of my fellow builders don't like it. I understand their concern but would not pursue turning in a handyman for trying to make a living myself unless he was misrepresenting himself or ripping someone off. I have seen these kind of individuals. I have much experience in that field but also know how easy the builders license was to acquire. I knew builders that didn't have much experience and gave them pointers if they asked. The building inspectors are very necessary to have in my trade. But a license doesn't necessarily make a person honest and experienced. Word of mouth got me all my jobs, if you are fair and picky you don't need to advertise. You never get rich that way but you can make a living.

Normally I would somewhat agree with your logic, but I have seen things from both sides of the street. I understand that our taxes paid provide services for everyone and have paid what I was required to. I actually see a need for the police, they are here to protect honest citizens. If they were no law enforcement here there would be no crime either. Just a bunch of funerals for kids that haven't yet learned that crime doesn't pay. Some of these kids just need to be shown that crime doesn't pay and will be good citizens in the future. We need to get real jobs for all our people so these kids can go to work. We need to actually stick them working without pay when they go to jail so they learn to hate jail.

reply to post by Bakatono


Agreed.

But, If someone is making an intentional protest, then the funniest outcome would be if the police ignored them. Police just have no creativity or sense of humor these days.

Yes, when we were kids, I started selling polished rocks to my neighbors, I ran lemonade stands, I once got sent home from school for having a backpack full of candy bars, and I had been selling them for $2 a piece the whole year.

This is how it should go down. This is how it would work in Mayberry.....
If a decent city cop drives by and sees a kid with a lemonade stand, as a good human being, role model, and ambassador for the government it his his duty to stop and buy some lemonade. He may also mention that they really should have a permit, and a parent close by, and warn them that if anyone complains, he might have to come back and shut them down, but in the meantime, enjoy the pretty weather and good luck with their stand. Then, if someone does indeed complain, the cop should apologetically tell them it has to come down, and as good citizens they should humbly comply and thank him for not writing a citation or being an ass about it.

Then, the parents should find out who complained, and make sure to walk the dog and shyte by that person's mailbox everyday from now on.

reply to post by rickymouse


There is nothing "evident" at all about your claim that I have never owned a small business, and I am hard at work right now - in between breaks where I post in here - building that business. I have struggled, I have suffered, and I have struggled some more to make a go of it, and I will continue to do so. Because I do like what I do, I am fine with the risks, but I am not at all fine with your smug lectures that presume I have no idea what it takes to operate and run a small business. Arrogance is defined as a presumption of knowledge, and this is precisely what you have done.

The problem stems in that someone else will see this and start selling all sorts of things on the street and soon there will be five people setting up shop on the street. Each stand will use the first stand as precedence to justify their action. It heats up to a big mess and the legit small business closes up shop and lays off it's employees. Now there is no legit business to service the area for a while and laws are passed to not allow stands in the area.

What you describe all ready goes on, yet your distinguishing a brick and mortar business as "legit" over a street vendor is just your opinion. You argue nothing but policy issues that legally speaking can only work in a an ex-ante argument, and any business would be hard pressed to prove in a court of law under any ex-post arguments that they were injured because a street vendor went into competition with them...unless we are under some form of communist or socialist system where plunder is legalized and the free market destroyed in favor of a state sanctioned market.

I am licensed to build homes. I have no problem with a handyman doing small jobs but some of my fellow builders don't like it. I understand their concern but would not pursue turning in a handyman for trying to make a living myself unless he was misrepresenting himself or ripping someone off. I have seen these kind of individuals.

I have seen licensed contractors, plumbers, and electricians do the same. I have seen "legit" architects screw up so profoundly as to cost the business owner thousands of dollars. If I haven't all ready made the point in this thread, it is only because I am continually making this point ad nauseum, but even If I have, it bears repeating: iatrogenocide is a very serious problem, and in 2000 was found to be the third leading cause of death for Americans. Iatrogenocide is death by doctoring - not Kevorkian death by doctoring but gross incompetence by licensed "legit" doctors.

Some of these kids just need to be shown that crime doesn't pay and will be good citizens in the future. We need to get real jobs for all our people so these kids can go to work. We need to actually stick them working without pay when they go to jail so they learn to hate jail.

It is somewhat disingenuous of you to first presume I have never owned a small business, then to lecture me and indirectly any member reading this on the struggles of owning a small business, only to then turn around and declare the kids need jobs. I have all ready argued in this thread that unemployment for kids in Washington D.C. exceeds the 50% level, and I have argued they should be able to set up lemonade stands, or even stands that sell Constitutions for the United States of America, which then be these kids owning and operating their own small business instead of kids who are stuck in jobs.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Bakatono

 

Agreed.

But, If someone is making an intentional protest, then the funniest outcome would be if the police ignored them. Police just have no creativity or sense of humor these days.

Yes, when we were kids, I started selling polished rocks to my neighbors, I ran lemonade stands, I once got sent home from school for having a backpack full of candy bars, and I had been selling them for $2 a piece the whole year.

This is how it should go down. This is how it would work in Mayberry.....
If a decent city cop drives by and sees a kid with a lemonade stand, as a good human being, role model, and ambassador for the government it his his duty to stop and buy some lemonade. He may also mention that they really should have a permit, and a parent close by, and warn them that if anyone complains, he might have to come back and shut them down, but in the meantime, enjoy the pretty weather and good luck with their stand. Then, if someone does indeed complain, the cop should apologetically tell them it has to come down, and as good citizens they should humbly comply and thank him for not writing a citation or being an ass about it.

Then, the parents should find out who complained, and make sure to walk the dog and shyte by that person's mailbox everyday from now on.

edit on 13-4-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

That isn't Mayberry, that was normalville USA just 30 years ago. Somewhere along the way we took a wrong turn at Albuquerque.

reply to post by Bakatono

That isn't Mayberry, that was normalville USA just 30 years ago. Somewhere along the way we took a wrong turn at Albuquerque.

Well, that is nice to hear. I grew up in a little Mayberry style town, so I wasn't sure that was normalville. I thought maybe it was just my town.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Well, I'm sorry for jumping to a conclusion about your lack of knowledge and experience in a small business. I would like to note that I see no problem with kids and lemonade stands. I think the kids and cops could have both handled this better. I'm thinking this is about the video of the kids that were mouthing off to the cop I had seen a while ago. If they would have said they weren't aware and they just left then no action would have probably been taken. If this is not the same reference video than I may be mistaken.

I have also lived in smaller towns most of my life. I cannot possibly know how Washington DC police are. The biggest town I have lived in is probably Sheboygan WI.

reply to post by Evanzsayz


Excellent reply - you deserve more than my one star, is anyone else out there reading this????

"I dont make the laws, I just enforce them." Sounds like a robot speaking, that is incapable of thinking on his own.

We do need to get to the root cause though, if you just remove a little of a tumor, it will grow and metastasize.

We MUST CHANGE or THROW OUT the stupid, antiquated laws.

Who can overturn a law pass by congress?

Answer:
Improve
President can veto it
Supreme Court can rule it unconstitutional
Future Congress can repeal it

Source: wiki.answers.com...

Senate and Congress are out on vacations more than they are in their houses working.

They retire with really super good medical and retirement packages - who works for who????

I don't know about you but my job was outsourced to India and yet we had to pay the IRS $700.00 friggin bucks in taxes.....................

I don't think my Senator or Congressman were worth the $700.00 I paid for their salary & benefits personally.

My Congressman signs all his letters to me with "I work for you".................BS!

We need a real over haul of our laws as well as another post (I starred) said that cops are above the law and many times can lie and get away with brutality and misuse of their authority.

Again, if you out there are a good, decent, cop thank you for all the nuts you have to put up with.

BUT if you are a cruel, abusive, tyrannical mf - and now we all have cell phone recorders, you should be held accountable for being abusive as well as never ever being allowed any position of authority again.

There are tons of videos showing cops, one was a woman, a group standing around one guy on the ground beating the frap out of him................THIS IS WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any police person that does this is no better than the thugs he/she has sworn to protect us from.

If we all don't get real interested and start trying to change things quickly, we are going to find ourselves living in a police state.

I can see a valid law stating: "Do not kill another person or do not drive while intoxicated"

But if the opening poster really says he is to enforce the laws, there are a lot of really stupid laws out there.

Want a good laugh: and for the opening poster, a study guide - now arrest me for driving in my house coat (wearing long johns underneath in my bedroom slippers)

www.usattorneylegalservices.com...

reply to post by getreadyalready


Oh but there's a law about not picking up your dogs droppings too now!!!!!

Good reply, and you would make a excellent cop!

Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Oh but there's a law about not picking up your dogs droppings too now!!!!!

Good reply, and you would make a excellent cop!

Thanks!

For the dog droppings, you just have to get out there nice and early before the neighbors are awake, LOL! Hypothetically.

reply to post by ofhumandescent

But if the opening poster really says he is to enforce the laws, there are a lot of really stupid laws out there.

Want a good laugh: and for the opening poster, a study guide - now arrest me for driving in my house coat (wearing long johns underneath in my bedroom slippers)

I am not clear what you mean by this, but I am the O.P. and it appears as if you have interpreted my opening post to mean that I am claiming to be some kind of LEO who is falling back on the lame excuse that is the (quoted) title of this thread. Of course, I may just be misinterpreting your statements here, but after reading this several times it reads to me as if you've inexplicably assumed I am the one claiming that "I don't make the laws, I just enforce them." If this is what you have assumed, nothing can be further from the truth. Clarification would be more than greatly appreciated.

It's practically a requirement these days to be a psychopath to be a cop, a politician, a CEO etc. That's a bit tongue in cheek as there's nothing on any application that states this but you get my point. Sometimes I feel bad for "the good ones", I even have friends who are cops, usually discussions on why say nothing about the corruption and the answer is generally what boils down to fear. They're afraid of retaliation or afraid of not being able to feed their families.

I remember reading about a cop who broke down during one of the more violent (police violence) days of OWS, they began to cry and start yelling at other cops that they were just people, that cop was quickly escorted back to their precinct. I wonder if they still have a job with NYPD. I remember reading about another cop who was pushed and screamed at by a "white shirt" for not being aggressive enough with protesters.

Some people will shrug and say well it's just a lemonade stand or it's just a bunch of hippies or it was just a thug, that breaks my heart. What else breaks my heart is that both people on the Left and the Right see this, even the Left or Right media see and discuss it yet we remain polarized and silent when it's not our side.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
"I don't make the laws, I just enforce them."

Similar to the much used statement "I was just following orders"; there are many examples of what destruction such attitudes could bring.

All too often this is the lame excuse LEO's give for breaking the law. "I'm just doing my job." However, no law enforcement officer ever has any obligation, nor any duty to act unlawfully. They do have a duty to protect the rights of individuals and do have the lawful authority to refuse to acquiesce to unlawful legislation, but do they? Will they? What is to be done?

Maybe we need to stray away from accepting "police" officers and once again have "peace" officers. But the growing acceptance that only the police are capable of protecting and guarding our liberties and freedoms allows such brutish actions to take place. That and complacency in such words as "I am not there protesting, so why does it matter to me how the police act?" -- or -- "The police are there to keep the peace".

Originally posted by rickymouse
Kids having a lemonade stand is not a threat. The problem stems in that someone else will see this and start selling all sorts of things on the street and soon there will be five people setting up shop on the street. Each stand will use the first stand as precedence to justify their action. It heats up to a big mess and the legit small business closes up shop and lays off it's employees. Now there is no legit business to service the area for a while and laws are passed to not allow stands in the area.

I want to break in here, excuse the intrusion of course. You state it isn't about lemonade stands but then finished off the paragraph by making the point that it is the problem. As JPZ already stated, you based this all on presumption that only the "brick and mortar" shops are legitimate and that a single vendor, operating in competition, is not.

Just because you asked for permission from the State to conduct business (an extreme abuse of State power in my opinion) doesn't mean the person operating under said license will be "legit". This is such a concept completely lost on the "credential-ized" society we live under that we all assume that the contractor who has a license is not crooked, or the doctor isn't incompetent, or the lawyer we just hired isn't shady and will do anything to win a case -- I know you touched on this in a later paragraph, so it doesn't directly apply to you, but still holds weight to your overall argument.

If they were no law enforcement here there would be no crime either. Just a bunch of funerals for kids that haven't yet learned that crime doesn't pay. Some of these kids just need to be shown that crime doesn't pay and will be good citizens in the future. We need to get real jobs for all our people so these kids can go to work. We need to actually stick them working without pay when they go to jail so they learn to hate jail.

I can see the point of this stance, but it is emotionally charged in a manner that isn't quite true. What you are speaking of is that we need to be policed, less we destroy ourselves. That a community, through strong individuals could not survive if we don't have some outside influence keeping us in line and in check. But I will agree with one line you wrote -- that jails have too much benefit to a somewhat decent quality of life (room, board, free gym, TV, etc.)

You know, without anyone to "just enforce them" they would lose their power.

All those government segregation laws would have been ineffective without people so willing to "enforce" them. Plenty of businesses wanted to double their sales but the government wouldnt let them and if they tried some polite folks came by to "enforce" the law.

All of those people killed under prohibition would have lived their lives out just fine if overzealous sadists werent so eager to "enforce" the law.

Was it worth it in NY to suffer weeks of rioting over a gay bar just so some insecure government employees could play dress up and whomp a homo or two? Of course not. But was it worth it when you're just "enforcing" the law?

Somebody should ask the family of that dead chief in that NH town if "enforcing" modern prohibition was worth it.

Without the enforcers all government can do is throw a hissy fit.

Too bad so many of the enforcers are completely brainwashed by delusions of honor and service.

Imagine being the wife of the last cop gunned down before the repeal of prohibition. What a waste.

I've heard folks say it's a tragedy because he supposedly "believed" in what he was doing. Well, pardon my insensitivity but it's a bit foolish to "believe" in something arbitrary that can be changed on a whim with the stroke of a pen. Like some middle school kid really believing in a popular clothing brand or musician or even a boy/girlfriend.

If these enforcers are real thinking people they must "believe" in the pension, the power and the benefits a bit more than the written law.