# US Police wage war against rogue lemonade stands



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 3, 2011)

Continuing the seeming growing trend of police in super safe parts for the country having nothing better to do than target kids lemonade stands for shakedowns in their jobs as income collectors for the town, police in Coralville, Iowa shut down several children's drink stands that had failed to pay the $400 vendor permit fees to the town.

At least some of them felt bad about it.

"The line has to be drawn somewhere," the town police chief told a local newspaper. "The line was drawn in the incorrect spot. Hopefully, they take that into account the next time RAGBRAI comes though." 


Police in Appleton, Wis also have targeted kids lemonade stands for shutdown.
http://www.channel3000.com/news/28609003/detail.html


> An officer then shut down the lemonade stand and said the sales were  prohibited by city ordinance. The law went into effect last month and  made it illegal for licensed vendors to sell food and drinks within a  two-block radius of a special event.Police have apologized to the family.



These things shouldn't be happening at all. What ever happened to common sense?

Local Coverage & News:
Coralville Police Shutdown Several Children's Lemonade Stands [KCRG]
Coralville dad sour over temporary ordinance [Iowa City Press-Citizen]
http://consumerist.com/2011/08/police-continue-fight-against-kiddie-lemonade-stand-menace.html

Previous Articles
Georgia Girls' Lemonade Stand Reopened at Local Water Park After Police Shut 
You got a licence for that Lemonaide? No? Then Ya'll are gonna have to come 
Police Bust Tweens For Operating Unlicensed Lemonade Stand 
Government Cracks Down On Little Girl's Lemonade Stand
Teens Busted For Selling Cupcakes Without A License



Sidenote: If it seems I'm being a tad critical of the PD's in these cases, yeah I am.  I tend to think that unless you have real serious health complaints, the tax collectors part of police duty should be much lower on the priority list than things like speeders, robberies, and actual victim crimes.  I hope these deputized 'Sherrifs of Notingham" sleep well at night after doing their duty shaking down little kids.


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Continuing the seeming growing trend of police in super safe parts for the country having nothing better to do than target kids lemonade stands for shakedowns in their jobs as income collectors for the town, police in Coralville, Iowa shut down several children's drink stands that had failed to pay the $400 vendor permit fees to the town.
> 
> At least some of them felt bad about it.
> 
> ...



Should they not shake down schools for sending out kids for fundraisers?


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2011)

But maybe the parents need to get the liscense, then deduct the cost of it as business expense, as well as the cost of the stand and the lemonade...lets face it, the parents pay dearly for their kid's fun of entrepeneurship. a quarter or whatever per cup does hardy cover the cost...

It does not hurt the city though....


(maybe all those kids need to open 'Alex's Lemonade stand' a fundraising effort I think for cancer/leucemia....sadly the young lady lost her fight, I do believe even before her name sake ran the Kentucky Derby: Afleet Alex)


Can minors even legally get a vendor's license?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 3, 2011)

I think we do need to crack down on rogue lemonade, it's giving the domesticated type a bad name.


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I think we do need to crack down on rogue lemonade, it's giving the domesticated type a bad name.



It would give all those soldiers being called home a job!


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 3, 2011)

As a bit of a tangent.. I was reading through some comments on those links and noted how some people were (and some here have as well...) spouting the old saws "_The police *no longer *serve us...", "Cops *no longer *work for us or with us, *now *they work against us._ " yadda yadda. Implying that somewhere back in time there was a "golden age" of law enforcement where all cops were "officer friendly". 

I think people have a tendency to manufacture a non-existant past so that they can imply that the current topic of conversation has somehow fallen from that standard. IMO thats BS based on either ignorance of history or a flawed impression of history based on popular media. If you had the cops of the 60's-70's and even the 80's patroling todays streets you cant imagine what sort of Youtube videos you would see. Todays policing is a dramatic improvement over yesteryears in terms of professionalism. Perhaps an argument could be made that these officers in this example are exhibiting less "officer discretion" in terms of enforcement than those of decades ago, but there are some people who would gripe about officers using discretion too.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 3, 2011)

[yt]piE-VEubGr4[/yt]


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> As a bit of a tangent.. I was reading through some comments on those links and noted how some people were (and some here have as well...) spouting the old saws "_The police *no longer *serve us...", "Cops *no longer *work for us or with us, *now *they work against us._ " yadda yadda. Implying that somewhere back in time there was a "golden age" of law enforcement where all cops were "officer friendly".
> 
> I think people have a tendency to manufacture a non-existant past so that they can imply that the current topic of conversation has somehow fallen from that standard. IMO thats BS based on either ignorance of history or a flawed impression of history based on popular media. If you had the cops of the 60's-70's and even the 80's patroling todays streets you cant imagine what sort of Youtube videos you would see. Todays policing is a dramatic improvement over yesteryears in terms of professionalism. Perhaps an argument could be made that these officers in this example are exhibiting less "officer discretion" in terms of enforcement than those of decades ago, but there are some people who would gripe about officers using discretion too.



I guess you never lived in Mayberry.....


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 3, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> As a bit of a tangent.. I was reading through some comments on those links and noted how some people were (and some here have as well...) spouting the old saws "_The police *no longer *serve us...", "Cops *no longer *work for us or with us, *now *they work against us._ " yadda yadda. Implying that somewhere back in time there was a "golden age" of law enforcement where all cops were "officer friendly".
> 
> I think people have a tendency to manufacture a non-existant past so that they can imply that the current topic of conversation has somehow fallen from that standard. IMO thats BS based on either ignorance of history or a flawed impression of history based on popular media. If you had the cops of the 60's-70's and even the 80's patroling todays streets you cant imagine what sort of Youtube videos you would see. Todays policing is a dramatic improvement over yesteryears in terms of professionalism. Perhaps an argument could be made that these officers in this example are exhibiting less "officer discretion" in terms of enforcement than those of decades ago, but there are some people who would gripe about officers using discretion too.



Exactly! what we have here is the fond remininces of the 'good old days' where when kids were caught being naughty the local copper would clip them round the ear and send them on their way suitably chastised. As if! If people think kids are bad today they should have seen them in Victorian and Edwardian times, even into the 30s and 40s things weren't as good as people 'remember'. A child caught stealing because he was hungry due to the appalling poverty is supposed to learn not to steal because he gets hit round the head by a policeman?
As you say policing is probably at the highest level of professionalism it has ever been,  I've just posted this on another thread, the police aren't perfect but they are trying to do the best they can, the truth is too that you can't please everyone.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 3, 2011)

[yt]PpiPEWDwK_Q[/yt]

This one isn't really on topic, other than the police violence hinted at but it is very funny if you're a middle-aged Britisher ... so that'll be me and Tez then who get this (maybe YL too) :lol:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> but they are trying to do the best they can, the truth is too that you can't please everyone.



A minor amendment, but I would say that _most_ police are trying to do the best they can and _most_ conduct themselves as professionals.  Some few, however, are corrupt, and while a small percentage, they know the power they hold and the damage they can cause.  The trick is both knowing the one from the other and remembering that they are, in fact, one and the other.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 3, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> A minor amendment, but I would say that _most_ police are trying to do the best they can and _most_ conduct themselves as professionals. Some few, however, are corrupt, and while a small percentage, they know the power they hold and the damage they can cause. The trick is both knowing the one from the other and remembering that they are, in fact, one and the other.



TBH that was a given, there are always going to be those who won't or can't abide by the law they are supposed to uphold.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 3, 2011)

Most police are decent folks, doing a hard job the best they can. 

In these cases though...there's a def. lack of 'discretion'.


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2011)

I still think the police should mace and tazer the kids and then take the family into custody for criminally dangerous capitalistic tendencies.  When will that free enterprise nonsense stop.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2011)

Shaking down a lemonaide stand is deplorable and the only fault I can find with the LEOs is that they know what the job description demands.  Otherwise, it's the people trying to legalize graft with terrible laws.  I imagine it's pretty easy being a cop, voting against all of that crap, and being forced to choose between your job and your principles because your citizen political side lost.  When I worked for the government as a teacher, this happened to me all of the time!  

If you quit and drop out of the system, like I did, that solves _your _problem, but it doesn't solve the greater problem because there is always someone willing to step up and do the dirty work.  Political action is the only way to make a real difference.  Go to meetings and take a principled stand.  Let others know what you think.  

And if you work for the Man, cut some breaks if you can get away with it.  I doubt the law was meant to be applied to kids.  It's origin lies in larger competitors setting up hurtles for their smaller competitors.  LOL, and that might apply to kids in some areas.


----------



## billc (Aug 3, 2011)

Solution:  Vote in more people who are tea party members or are sympathetic to the movement.   That will help with the silliness.


----------



## granfire (Aug 3, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Solution:  Vote in more people who are tea party members or are sympathetic to the movement.   That will help with the silliness.



Son, we want _LESS_ silliness, not more!


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2011)

granfire said:


> Son, we want _LESS_ silliness, not more!



Yeah, you can sell lemonaide, but not to homosexuals and you must to give it to our soldiers for free.  Tea Party does not equal freedom.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 3, 2011)

Coralville, Iowa Police Department Daily Assignment Briefing:

"Johnson? You're handling the O'Malley Murder Investigation. Take Smalls with you, that's a tough neighborhood."
"Lewis? You're on traffic duty. Patrol around the 9th street offramp, got a report of some increases in speeding out there. Be very visible, we want them to slow down especially around the on and off ramps."
"Whatta about me Sarge?"
"Larry, You're on racketeering and code enforcement today. Got a rumor some kids are setting up an unlicensed lemonade stand in the Growler area. Shake em down, make sure they know they need a permit, an inspection and at least 2 tickets to the policemans ball to set up there. A bust will look good on your resume. While you're out, stop by Duncan's Donuts and get the chief a coffee."


----------



## MaxiMe (Aug 3, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Yeah, you can sell lemonaide, but not to homosexuals and you must to give it to our soldiers for free. Tea Party does not equal freedom.


Or yeah you can sell it, provided that you have all the paper work and permits, environmental study (at a price), give the government at least 50% in taxes, join the govenment union and pay dues, reduce prices for other government union members, ILLEGAL Aliens (undocumented, transient, or whatever the newest term is), oh and change the name from  Suzy's Lemonade to Government refreshment project. Yup  Far left progressivism  doesn't equal freedom either.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2011)

MaxiMe said:


> Or yeah you can sell it, provided that you have all the paper work and permits, environmental study (at a price), give the government at least 50% in taxes, join the govenment union and pay dues, reduce prices for other government union members, ILLEGAL Aliens (undocumented, transient, or whatever the newest term is), oh and change the name from  Suzy's Lemonade to Government refreshment project. Yup  Far left progressivism  doesn't equal freedom either.



I didn't say that it did.  This isn't an either/or debate.  Both the Left and the Right are wings on the government's vulture.  It's gotta feed on someone...

...until people realize that it doesn't.  If you have your foot in either camp, you ain't for freedom.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 3, 2011)

While I have no proof that THIS is the case... things like this are rarely the result of some lone officer deciding that a corner lemonade stand is in violation of the City ordinance. 

9 times out of 10 these things are started by some politician/mayor/councilmember or bureaucrat with an agency like the city/county/state health dept. complaining to the Chief about all those damn kids with their health code violations. Instead of the Chief telling the mayor or whoever that he's not going to lean on some kid (and risk political blowback) he has his officers go out and do stuff like this.

The other 1 time out of 10... it seems like its some busybody on the street who demands that the cops come and kick the kids off the sidewalk and if they don't they are "not doing their job".."not enforcing the law"..."they are going to call the media"..."going to complain to the mayor"...etc.

We just get the joy of taking ALL the blame.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 3, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> While I have no proof that THIS is the case... things like this are rarely the result of some lone officer deciding that a corner lemonade stand is in violation of the City ordinance.
> 
> 9 times out of 10 these things are started by some politician/mayor/councilmember or bureaucrat with an agency like the city/county/state health dept. complaining to the Chief about all those damn kids with their health code violations. Instead of the Chief telling the mayor or whoever that he's not going to lean on some kid (and risk political blowback) he has his officers go out and do stuff like this.
> 
> ...



The joys of politics and spineless politicians.

Remember, you can't have government with out ticks.


----------



## Stealthy (Aug 3, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> it seems like its some busybody on the street who demands that the cops come and kick the kids off the sidewalk and if they don't they are "not doing their job".."not enforcing the law"..."they are going to call the media"..."going to complain to the mayor"...etc.



Man's law is the problem...Rather than having a law that says nobody hurts anybody else. We have a law that creates a situation whereby children technically helping people(by providing them with refreshing lemonade) become the victims because an entity(either a living breathing person or a non-human essentially immortal business losing customers to the children) not only decides it wants to hurt the children but is then facilitated in this endeavour by the police who are now sanctioned to hurt the kids, granted the kids probably did not face fines but they certainly could have and it would definitely have hurt.

The problem is the law but without individual police officers enforcing it the law has no power.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 3, 2011)

Officer discretion is a whole other can of worms. 

It's like the complaints about traffic tickets..theres never a cop when you need one when you see some guy blow a red light but the cop is nothing but a revenue maker when YOU get a ticket. 

It's much the same with many laws. The cop isn't doing his job when he's not enforcing the laws YOU agree with and hes a jackboot when he enforces the laws you dont like.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> While I have no proof that THIS is the case... things like this are rarely the result of some lone officer deciding that a corner lemonade stand is in violation of the City ordinance.
> 
> 9 times out of 10 these things are started by some politician/mayor/councilmember or bureaucrat with an agency like the city/county/state health dept. complaining to the Chief about all those damn kids with their health code violations. Instead of the Chief telling the mayor or whoever that he's not going to lean on some kid (and risk political blowback) he has his officers go out and do stuff like this.
> 
> ...



Hey, that's a familiar story with government work.  Replace cop with teacher and I know exactly how you feel.  Making a Living vs. Principles.


----------



## Stealthy (Aug 3, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Officer discretion is a whole other can of worms.



Officer discretion is the last bastion of defense "living, breathing humans" have against injustice and to that end, any officer discretion is better than none but bear in mind it is only needed because the laws are so flawed.

I keep making the distinction of living, breathing humans versus non-living entities because it is the true "us versus them". "Us" being living breathing entities bound by mortality and "Them" being immortal non-sentient entities that exercise the same rights as those of us that are bound by blood.

A Police Officer is not the Police Force, the Police Force is immortal and through the actions of mortals acting on its behalf is protected and free to grow in strength beyond the limitations of those bound by blood. The same applies for Laws, Companies, Government parties, basically any organization which is able to live on by recycling it's support network(people).

It has got soooo bad that children can't set up a lemonade stand without being persecuted.

But it will get a lot worse if people don't fight back against the non-sentient immortals.

These laws get passed because we rely on the integrety off the officers upholding them but laws are dangerous things that can live on long past those that breathed life into them and who's to say what influences will be on officers a hundred years from now.


----------



## MaxiMe (Aug 3, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> I didn't say that it did. This isn't an either/or debate. Both the Left and the Right are wings on the government's vulture. It's gotta feed on someone...
> 
> ...until people realize that it doesn't. If you have your foot in either camp, you ain't for freedom.


My point exactly. Kick them all out and lets reset the whole thing not just the economy.
Power corrups. Absolute power corrupts absolutely or something like that. (not the cop per say) but if it was the political hack directing the cheif to direct the cop. then both the politicial and the PC/political hack cheif are at fault. Bounce them both out on their most thoughtful parts


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2011)

Stealthy said:


> These laws get passed because we rely on the integrety off the officers upholding them...



They get passed because the government relies on people to obey, cops included.  The only reason people are being shaken down for 400 dollars is to prevent competition.  The people on the inside are charging for permission slips and the cops are in the unfortunate position to have to enforce that.  THAT isn't integrity.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 3, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Yeah, you can sell lemonaide, but not to homosexuals and *you must to give it to our soldiers for free*. Tea Party does not equal freedom.



Spend half my life escorting young ladies off military establishments who think that too. Very patriotic our local girls.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 3, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Spend half my life escorting young ladies off military establishments who think that too. Very patriotic our local girls.



Kill joy.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2011)

New Entitlement Program here we come! Recruitment goes through the roof!

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## MJS (Aug 3, 2011)

Gee...here's a thought....perhaps people should inquire about these things before they do them.  No, I'm not sticking up for the cops.  Personally, I think that there're more important things to be worrying about than shutting down a lemonade stand.  One would assume that if something is being done on private property, a permit wouldn't be needed.  Ive held garage sales w/o a permit.  Now, if I go down to the supermarket and start collecting for a charity, well yeah, I will probably need one.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2011)

MJS said:


> Gee...here's a thought....perhaps people should inquire about these things before they do them.  No, I'm not sticking up for the cops.  Personally, I think that there're more important things to be worrying about than shutting down a lemonade stand.  One would assume that if something is being done on private property, a permit wouldn't be needed.  Ive held garage sales w/o a permit.  Now, if I go down to the supermarket and start collecting for a charity, well yeah, I will probably need one.



What purpose do the permission slips serve?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 3, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> What purpose do the permission slips serve?



Revenue.  About it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 3, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Revenue.  About it.



How about as a barrier for competition?


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 4, 2011)

MJS said:


> One would assume that if something is being done on private property, a permit wouldn't be needed.  Ive held garage sales w/o a permit.  Now, if I go down to the supermarket and start collecting for a charity, well yeah, I will probably need one.


Good point. Although "Lemonade Stand" implies kids on their front lawn, how many of these are about parents bringing jr to the event at the park to set up next to the cotton candy guy who had to pay to attend?


----------



## MJS (Aug 4, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> What purpose do the permission slips serve?





Bob Hubbard said:


> Revenue. About it.



While I"m sure there is a fee, I doubt its going to break someones bank.  My point was simply this...if it means avoiding a potential headache, why not go the safe route and get the permit?  I mean, lets look at the 2 options:

1) Get the permit and save yourself potential issues.  

2) Dont get it, get shut down by the cops, and then ***** and cry like a friggin 2yo when it happens, so it'll give a reason to bash the cops.  

Common sense should dictate option 1, but we know common sense amongst some people is lacking.  

Yes, it does seem petty, and childish and mean of them to shut down the stand, but perhaps they're doing their job.  Yes, I know, I said it myself, there's more 'productive' things, so to speak, for them to do, but this is yet again, one of those damned if ya do, damned if ya dont situation.  Dont do anything, the cops get **** on.  Do something, they get **** on.  People complain about speeders thru their neighborhood.  Cops set up radar.  I wonder how many complainers are part of the problem.  So when they get stopped, they'll ***** too. LOL.


----------



## MJS (Aug 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Good point. Although "Lemonade Stand" implies kids on their front lawn, how many of these are about parents bringing jr to the event at the park to set up next to the cotton candy guy who had to pay to attend?



Likewise, good point.   Like I said, if these kids are setting up on public property, ie: the girl scouts trying to sell cookies outside the grocery store, yes, in that situation, a permit is needed.  Of course, this is why I also said the laws of ones town should be known.  If someone has to stop and think, "Gee, I'm planning on doing X, I wonder if I need a permit?"  A quick call to the local PD should solve that issue.  Interestingly enough, I took one of those calls yesterday at work.  I directed the caller to the Sgt on the front desk.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 4, 2011)

And after reading each of those news articles, almost all of them were due to some sort of special circumstance; setting up at a fair, some sort of 2 day sweep during some special local event, setting up at a local water park, a local politician filing a complaint, etc. Although the media likes to make it sound like the cops are wandering the suburban neighborhoods kicking kids of their front lawns, that doesn't look like it's the case.


----------



## cdunn (Aug 4, 2011)

The "permission slips" establish responsibility when someone uses a spoiled or tainted ingredient and a hundred people get the runs and three of them die from it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 4, 2011)

> Get the permit and save yourself potential issues.



If Jr. has mommy and daddy front the full cost of all ingredients and materials (meaning no out of pocket), and sells 50 cups of sugar water at $2 each, jr will face a net loss of $300 after obtaining the $400 permit.  Or his parents will spend $450 so jr can make $100.

Only a fool would do that.


----------



## MJS (Aug 4, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If Jr. has mommy and daddy front the full cost of all ingredients and materials (meaning no out of pocket), and sells 50 cups of sugar water at $2 each, jr will face a net loss of $300 after obtaining the $400 permit. Or his parents will spend $450 so jr can make $100.
> 
> Only a fool would do that.



Is the $400 figure a factual number or just an example?


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 4, 2011)

I suggest that people actually read the details on these incidents before commenting about the LEO's involved. While a few are vauge in the details of why exactly the officers were taking the action they did, most of them appear to have special circumstances.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

Or, get organized and replace the people in charge of the village.  Stop putting the kids and the cops in these situations by putting people who think into the position of making the ordinances.  There is the story of Sony Bono, the ex-husband of Cher.  He opened a restaraunt in the town he lived in in california.  He wanted to put up a sign for his restaraunt and he began the process of getting the permits and paying the fees.  Several years later, the sign still hadn't been put up because of the morass of permits and fees and regulations.  At one point the "sign commissioner" was talking to Bono about the situation and Bono said, " I  know how to get my sign put up," the commisioner said "Yeah, how's that."  Bono said, " I'm going to get elected Mayor and then I'm going to fire you."  He did and then he did.  Sonny Bono then went on to congress.  That is the American way of getting things done.  Stop blaming the cops.  Go after the useless, meddling, greedy politicians.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 4, 2011)

MJS said:


> Is the $400 figure a factual number or just an example?



Factual number in 1 case. Don't have time to research every case in depth.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 4, 2011)

cdunn said:


> The "permission slips" establish responsibility when someone uses a spoiled or tainted ingredient and a hundred people get the runs and three of them die from it.



That assumes this couldn't be done without the "permission slip" or "fee".  I disagree.

The point that I'm making and that Bob is arguing (I'm assuming) is based on principle.  Its wrong when a group of people with guns shake you down for money and time when all you want to do it engage in legitimate trade.  If we take away the government label, we'd call this group of people, the mafia or some other organized crime syndicate.  It's legalized extortion and it's wrong.

Whilst I understand the pragmatic argument of "get the permission slip so the guys with costumes leave you alone" it doesn't change the fact that it's wrong in principle.  If people tell the legalized mafia to **** themselves and get busted, they have every right to complain and let everyone know that it's ********.  

Think about all of the hurdles that prevent a guy from making a living living when circumstances change.  All of these barriers freeze society and create dependence on those who issue the permission slips.  This isn't what freedom looks like.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 4, 2011)

So you are for unregulated commerce?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 4, 2011)

Yup.

The government's track record in improving this vs screwing them up def. favors them not touching things.

In 1850, I could fish, hunt, marry, build a house and open a business without having to wade through a maze of permits, fees, regulations, and what not.
160 years later it seems I'm lucky there isn't a $1 a turd pooping fee and a special fecal police squad.
Ridiculous? Maybe. But think about how many other things have fees tacked on them today. It's insane.

Crap, I can't even buy a blank data cd without the RIAA and MPAA getting a cut of the sale.
I need a permit to set up a yard sale, and can only do that twice a year, and need to get a sales tax permit and handle paperwork on that.
Just so I can sell a couple old magazines and a box of books worth maybe $20.

And people wonder why innovation in the US is at an all time low.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 4, 2011)

Honestly, what does all this harassment of kids get us?

Stiffed innovation.
Kids afraid of cops.
Kids resentful of politicians.
Stifled entrepreneurial spirit.

Hell, I don't even want to bother trying to do another yard sale because the Buffalo PD threatened me with a $200 fine for putting a sign up.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 4, 2011)

Unregulated trade/commerce is fine in theory but a nightmare in actual application. I don't think that any known civilization has been free of some sort of regulation. Reasonable regulation vs uncontrolled and purely revenue based regulation? Sure. Some company allowed to do/dump/burn/ etc whatever they want to in my backyard? No thanks.

Again. It seems that most of your examples here are NOT "cop drives down street and fines/yells at every kid selling lemonade".


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Unregulated trade/commerce is fine in theory but a nightmare in actual application. I don't think that any known civilization has been free of some sort of regulation. Reasonable regulation vs uncontrolled and purely revenue based regulation? Sure. Some company allowed to do/dump/burn/ etc whatever they want to in my backyard? No thanks.
> 
> Again. It seems that most of your examples here are NOT "cop drives down street and fines/yells at every kid selling lemonade".



If it's your backyard and you have a reasonable way of asserting your property rights, how much more do you need?

The problem with government regulation is that even though it may start out as well intentioned, it always bends towards graft in the end.  Self interest always wins.  Self interest combined with legalized violence creates a society of corruption.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> So you are for unregulated commerce?



I only know how to regulate myself.  How can I regulate my neighbor without taking into account my own self interest?


----------



## granfire (Aug 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Unregulated trade/commerce is fine in theory but a nightmare in actual application. I don't think that any known civilization has been free of some sort of regulation. Reasonable regulation vs uncontrolled and purely revenue based regulation? Sure. Some company allowed to do/dump/burn/ etc whatever they want to in my backyard? No thanks.
> 
> Again. It seems that most of your examples here are NOT "cop drives down street and fines/yells at every kid selling lemonade".



The US is going overboard with some of it.
Sure when you make a living of doing flea markets and trade days, you also need to pay your taxes (that is done around here via honr system as it pertains to sales tax, thogh I wonder if it really is worth the trouble...)

Every little thing you take in, there is a tax on it. 
Like I said, you do it professionally, no problem. But having to pay taxes when you made a profit from selling one horse, or one car....the house you lived in for several years....the couple hundred bucks you won at the track....
You get nickeled and dimed to death.

I see it were the kids can't set up shop where professionals paid a lot of money for their license. That would not be ok...

However, I think we are mixing the 2 stories up, the one with the Georgia girls and the other cases....the first one did not seem to be associated with anything but the neighborhood and 3 kids wanting to earn their way to a fun day in the water park (that in turn provided the admission and the lemonade stand, awesome PR move!)

One really should not have to buy a permit for a yard sale where you might not even sell one single piece (and one should not need more than one , 2 max a year either) 
That makes it easier 9and more profitable) to call the Goodwill and have them write you a donation slip as they haul your old crud away! 

We are bombarded with silly rules and regulations.

Kids can win icecream parties, or pizza parties for performing well in the schools fund raisers....but I had all kinds of problems bringing stored bought cup cakes for the birthday of my kid....or the pizzas...

A friend had to make sure the chili or whatever she brought was restaurant made....she was in the business, she remarked on how nasty some restaurants are....most certainly not as clean as her own kitchen....


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 4, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> If it's your backyard and you have a reasonable way of asserting your property rights, how much more do you need?
> 
> The problem with government regulation is that even though it may start out as well intentioned, it always bends towards graft in the end. Self interest always wins. Self interest combined with legalized violence creates a society of corruption.



Till your kids start complaining that their water tastes like lead and they get chemical burns on their feet when they play outside....

Look at what unregulated (or stupidly regulated) banking did to our economy vis a vis the housing market. While I am for small government Im not quite ready for NO government.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Till your kids start complaining that their water tastes like lead and they get chemical burns on their feet when they play outside....
> 
> Look at what unregulated (or stupidly regulated) banking did to our economy vis a vis the housing market. While I am for small government Im not quite ready for NO government.



I'm not advocating no government, just as little as possible.

As to the banking mess....blame Hamilton. It was his idea.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Till your kids start complaining that their water tastes like lead and they get chemical burns on their feet when they play outside....
> 
> Look at what unregulated (or stupidly regulated) banking did to our economy vis a vis the housing market. While I am for small government Im not quite ready for NO government.



Pollution is a property rights issue.  Maybe we can solve things voluntarily without resorting to political force.  The banking situation is the result of political force.  Self interest at the point of a gun.


----------



## Archangel M (Aug 4, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Pollution is a property rights issue. Maybe we can solve things voluntarily without resorting to political force. The banking situation is the result of political force. Self interest at the point of a gun.



Are you one of those sovereign citizen types? This is starting to sound like one of their chapter and verses. Redefining our entire legal system based on property rights and private courts just isn't ever going to happen. 

While I agree that the "promote the general welfare" part of the Constitution has been overreached at times and twisted for political purposes, it does have it's place. I don't think it should be MY personal duty, expense, and effort to keep a company from polluting my ENTIRE areas environment. Neither should all of my neighbors have to pony up for lawyers to file personal lawsuits every single time a neighbor does something the effects the community as a whole.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Are you one of those sovereign citizen types? This is starting to sound like one of their chapter and verses. Redefining our entire legal system based on property rights and private courts just isn't ever going to happen.



I'm just playing with ideas, Arch.  I might be one of those guys someday, who knows.  I completely understand where you are coming from and the pessimistic part of me thinks it's a pollyanna idealistic utopia.  On the other hand, philosophically, this makes a lot of sense.  I'm wrestling with ideas, brother...


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2011)

Actually, it was government interference in the loan process that made the subprime mortgage problem.  the clintons, Barney frank Chris Dodd and the like, with some republican help, forced banks to make loans to people with no business buying a house.  This started the problem, and Barney Frank kept other people from fixing the problem.  Check out the book "Wreckless Endangerment," it goes through the whole mess and names the names of the guilty.

http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Outsized-Corruption-Armageddon/dp/0805091203/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1312494686&sr=1-1

reviews of the book:

"Gretchen Morgenson is a national treasure. Year after year, she has dragged Wall Street miscreants out of the shadows, exposing their dirty secrets to the public that they bamboozled with schemes and deceits. Now, working with Joshua Rosner, she has trained her expert eye on the mortgage mess that pushed the American economy to the brink. In stunning detail, Morgenson exposes the truth behind the worst financial calamity of modern times, weaving a tale that is as mesmerizing as it is horrifying. _Reckless Endangerment_ names the names and reveals the secrets of the plutocrats and politicians whose greed and recklessness threatened the foundations of capitalism.  It is essential reading for anyone struggling to understand how America entered the new era of financial chaos."&#8212;*Kurt Eichenwald, New York Timesbestselling author of Conspiracy of Fools and The Informant*
"Even before _Reckless Endangerment, _Gretchen Morgenson was my nominee for Reporter of the Decade for her forensic and prophetic coverage of Wall Street. Now, she and the equally talented sleuth Joshua Rosner, like Holmes and Dr. Watson, have pieced together the clues to a seminal mystery of the financial debacle: how American taxpayers were suckered by the shenanigans, greed, egos, back scratching, and guile of financial and political elites who swarmed like vultures around Fannie Mae, picking it clean of oversight and accountability while its executives gorged themselves on the spoils. Naming names and taking no prisoners, they drill deep into one of the most disturbing scandals of our time, perpetrated in the name of helping "the little guy."  Read it and weep. Read it and vow_: Never Again_*!&#8212;Bill Moyers, journalist, and President, Schumann Media Center

about the book

In Reckless Endangerment, Gretchen Morgenson, the star business columnist of The New York Times, exposes how the watchdogs who were supposed to protect the country from financial harm were actually complicit in the actions that finally blew up the American economy.
Drawing on previously untapped sources and building on original research from coauthor Joshua Rosner&#8212;who himself raised early warnings with the public and investors, and kept detailed records&#8212;Morgenson connects the dots that led to this fiasco.
Morgenson and Rosner draw back the curtain on Fannie Mae, the mortgage-finance giant that grew, with the support of the Clinton administration, through the 1990s, becoming a major opponent of government oversight even as it was benefiting from public subsidies. They expose the role played not only by Fannie Mae executives but also by enablers at Countrywide Financial, Goldman Sachs, the Federal Reserve, HUD, Congress, the FDIC, and the biggest players on Wall Street, to show how greed, aggression, and fear led countless officials to ignore warning signs of an imminent disaster.
Character-rich and definitive in its analysis, this is the one account of the financial crisis you must read.
*


----------



## MJS (Aug 7, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Factual number in 1 case. Don't have time to research every case in depth.



I can't believe anyone would charge that much for a permit.


----------

