New Washington, DC, Food Truck Rules Are (Mostly) Good (So Far)

One week in, I'm cautiously optimistic about the District's new food truck rules.

This week marked the launch of new rules in Washington, DC that are intended to put an end to years of rancor between the District’s food trucks and their supporters on the one hand and regulators and the restaurant lobby in the District on the other.

If the first week under the new regulations is a harbinger of the long-term impact of the rules, then I’m cautiously optimistic.

As the Washington Post’s Tim Carman reported this week, formerly arcane rules meant that food trucks in the District were constantly under fire, forced to find haphazard parking solutions when they’d rather have been serving customers.

“In the past at places such as Farragut Square, passenger cars (sometimes even cabbies who might charge $25 for a prime spot) would hold spaces until food trucks arrived,” writes Carman. “Parking enforcement officers would ticket trucks less than a minute after the meters expired. And the truck operators would conduct private deals to switch parking spots and extend their vending time beyond the two hours allowed on the meters.”

Among other changes, the new rules allow food trucks to enter into monthly lottery system for designated parking spots. Those that choose not to take part—or that don't win a particular lottery—are free to park in non-lottery spots, which are often the same spots they'd have parked in anyways.

Perfect? No. Better than the earlier threats of cabbie bribes and parking tickets? Of being forced to abandon a parking spot and drive in circles for the theater of it all? I think so.

The new rules are also far better than rules the DC Council considered adopting this past summer, rules I wrote in a DC Examiner op-ed were “arbitrary and punitive [and] could kill off the District's vibrant food truck scene.” Indeed, they’re better, too, than rules the same Council considered in 2012 (and which I criticized in a Huffington Post column).

How do others perceive the new rules? I tracked down several of the key players in the District by email this week and found my cautious optimism is shared by leaders in the two major camps (food trucks and brick-and-mortar restaurants) alike, along with their supporters.

“I think the first three days have gone fairly well from the food truck operators' and from the customers' perspective," says Doug Povich, co-owner of the Red Hook Lobster Pound truck and head of the District’s Food Truck Association, in an email to me. “We appreciate not having to jockey for parking spaces or feed the meters. Plus being able to vend for more than 2 hours fits better with the length of our service periods. And vendors who choose not to vend in the [lottery spaces] can still operate as we did in the past. Customers I think appreciate seeing different vendors at each location each day of the week.”

Povich’s fellow association member Che Ruddell-Tabisola, co-owner of the BBQ Bus food truck, emphasizes that point.

“[F]ood truck owner-operators can choose to serve at one of the city’s managed locations or instead go almost anywhere else in the District food truck fans ask them to,” he tells me by email, referring to this crucial fact as “underreported.”

“The regulations that were issued certainly are not perfect,” says Bert Gall, senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, also by email, “but they are far superior to the version that RAMW [the Restaurant Association of Metro Washington] and the Mayor were pushing; that version would have caused catastrophic damage to the D.C. food truck industry.”

But it’s not just food truck owners and their defenders who seem reasonably happy with the rules.

“We’re pleased with the initial reports that we’ve read and heard,” says RAMW president and CEO Kathy Hollinger, in an email to me. “From what we can tell, consumer choice has been preserved and food truck operators have been able to focus on growing their business rather than fighting for parking spaces.”

These seemingly positive changes in rules governing food trucks in the District, and their positive outcomes, may be part of a larger national development.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ted S.||

    Before the usual tedious topics that we've covered with walls of comment text show up:

    Asshole control freak wants to ban high-heel shoes

    It's for the "public health" of course:

    According the the foot specialist, extensive high heel use by women can even result in gangrene in the legs.

    [...]

    "I think that it should be required by law or EU directive that the height of heels be regulated," he states. "High heels could first be dropped to 40 millimetres and ultimately to 31 millimetres. Such a height maintains good health."
  • BakedPenguin||

    Of course. Women are too dumb to know to take off their shoes or anything.

  • anon||

    "Like, oh my god, when my feet start to hurt I should like take my shoes off?"

  • BakedPenguin||

    "When the bloody pus started oozing out, I thought maybe should take them off, but then I realized that if it were really a problem, the government would have made them put on a warning label."

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    BP, saw your comment about the World Cup in a post somewhere. Soccer fan?

    Anyway, I countered that the USA is not in a group of death. I think there are three solid groups but no GOD.

  • BakedPenguin||

    There are a few of us here: Apathiest, Rhywun, Timon.

    And I'd argue that it's as if the group was picked to mess with the US. Germany and Portugal are both good teams, and Ghana has upset the US the past 2 WC's.

    We do have a very good team now, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that we'll move on past the group stage, but other than replacing one of the other teams with Brazil, I don't see how it could be much worse.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    France lucked out BIG TIME.

    Yeah, weird how the USA gets their groups. But like you said. I think they have a solid squad.

  • Raven Nation||

    I'd count myself as a selective soccer fan (EPL, World Cup, UEFA & I keep an eye on the A-League & MSL). Tough group for the US + my homeland, Australia is pretty much dead before the cup starts.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Rufus - agreed about France. While I don't hate them, it would only be karma if Swi & Ecu win the group.

    RN - Oz is in a kind of funny situation - they have almost guaranteed entry into the group stages, and almost always a guaranteed exit right after it. Unless FIFA was willing to cut Oceania to .5 places, that's not going to change.

  • Raven Nation||

    BP: agree on Oz. That was one of the reasons they switched to the Asian group: to get away from the playoffs. They did make it out of the group stage in 2006 & almost went to e-t with Italy before a terrible penalty call.

    Interestingly, I heard that NZ is petitioning for the winner of the Oceania (which I think is already 0.5 places) group to go into the group stages of the Asian federation. Either that or FNZ is contemplating applying to enter Asia to get away from the playoff scenario. If the latter, that would really screw things up b/c if Oceania kept 0.5 spots, the winner would just be cannon fodder for another confederation.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I feel compelled to remind you about the Italy game that Australia was a man up for 60 minutes after Italy themselves were given a harsh red. Australia proceeded to not do much the rest of the way.

    As for the penalty itself, harsh perhaps as well, but defense 101 - don't come barreling in like that off an angle. The ref was left with almost no choice.

  • Raven Nation||

    RJF: true. But it was a classic Italian flop.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Oh,that rubbish?

    Was the German dive in 1990 a 'classic German flop? Just wondering. Malouda was pretty impressive in the final.

    Been watching the game since '78 and I've seen far, far worse during that time and many did not involve I-talians. In fact, there no better or worse than other countries. But for some reason get absurdly singled out.

    Brazilians, Argentinians, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch (to name a few) and yes, even the "righteous' Germans were 'classic' divers. Shit, in 2010 Dempsey was pretty shameless.

    As you know, theatrics come from South America and they're the greatest practitioners of the sort.

  • robc||

    There seems to be a strong correlation between romance languages and diving.

    Yes, Netherlands is bad. Yes, there are bad individuals in Germany/England/USA. But it seems much more cultural in South America, Italy, Portugal, Spain.

  • Rhywun||

    But it seems much more cultural in South America, Italy, Portugal, Spain.

    That has been my impression as well.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    "Seems" is the operative word.

    I notice non-Latins will say stuff like that.

    It's not 'bad individuals' dude. In the case, of Holland and Germany it's more than you claim.

    And Italy is not as bad as Portugal and South America.

  • Raven Nation||

    Rufus: well, I wrote Italian flop b/c they were playing Italy. If they were playing England, I would have said classic Pommie dive. I like soccer, but when you grow up watching rugby and Australian football, the theatrics in soccer can get to be annoying.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Fair enough.

    I played soccer and hockey so I get your take. It's not entirely wrong but just playing devil's advocate.

    And diving has crept into basketball and hockey which suggests it transcends nationalities. I guess that's my overall point.

    More often than not, the temptation to fall in the box is too great in soccer.

    Balotelly, incidentally, likes to fall.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Balotelli. Ugh.

  • Raven Nation||

    Rufus: makes sense. I don't follow the NBA but I know there was a big stink a few years back about "flopping." Didn't realize it had become an issue in hockey (don't get NBC Sports Network so only get limited games).

    I think what bugs me a little about the penalty box in soccer is that guys will play the ball into an impossible situation with the intent to dive rather than to play the ball. I know the EPL (at least, maybe others?) now allows one to be booked for diving, but that strikes me as just inserting more subjective refereeing into the game. In real time, from a lot of angles, it's hard to pick a dive from a foul from "incidental" contact.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I agree with all that.

    Not sure what refs can do but bookings for simulation is higher than it's been.

    The other issue is there's a difference between embellishing and diving. In places like Italy (an Argentinian soccer expert once told me this) where man to man marking is vicious and among the best they tend to clip and chip away at ankles and shins. Offensive players felt they weren't 'protected' by refs so they would simply fall to gain the edge.

    It's a practical reaction if not cynical.

    Plus, it DOES hurt to get cleats in those areas.

    Yeah, the NHL has seen a small spike. I suspect it's for the same reasons above - that and the fact the instigator rule doesn't allow for players to just purge each other once in a while.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Don't hate France either but they complained about being in a small qualifying group and in the end they end up in a better spot than Spain ironically enough. Heck, better than Holland, Italy and Germany for that matter each who had much better qualifying campaigns.

    Conspiracy theories abound when it comes to France these past two world cups.

  • Rhywun||

    Don't hate France either

    I do. I was hoping they'd flame out again, but... I see there is little chance of that this time.

    As for the US, well... what to say. Ghana again. Germany?! There is no chance despite the hopeful wishes of some commentators I've been hearing.

  • robc||

    We *should* beat Ghana.

    We will lose to Germany.

    We can beat Portugal. Or tie them and advance on goal differential. Of have Portugal flame out.

    Germany should win the group. We arent favored to advance, but it isnt radical odds against.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I agree with you robc. I think the Portugal game is key.

    Portugal can be very strong defensively and plus they have a game breaker in Ronaldo. All depends how they contain him.

    May come down to GD unfortunately.

  • Rhywun||

    I give it about even odds that we lose all three.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    That's why they play the games.

    Dark horses anyone fancies?

    I like Belgium followed by Columbia. Chile is stacked with talent but not convinced they think they can win.

  • Raven Nation||

    "I like Belgium followed by Columbia"

    Yeah, Bob Ley demonstrated his ignorance yesterday when he called the Belgium group "easy." A LOT of observers are picking Belgium as a realistic chance to go to the final. Winning the cup? No non-South American team has ever won the WC in South America.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I watched a couple of Belgium games and watch them in England, Germany and Italy.

    Fast, physical and good technique.

    In fairness, it's not that strong a group. Russia is okay to the extent Capello gets the right tactics. But that's not to say Belgium isn't strong.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I watched a couple of Belgium games and watch them in England, Germany and Italy.

    Fast, physical and good technique.

    In fairness, it's not that strong a group. Russia is okay to the extent Capello gets the right tactics. But that's not to say Belgium isn't strong.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Lloris is a great keeper though. I like Deschamps. I was speaking to an Franco-Alegerian. He's convinced the second leg of Ukr-Fra was "fixed."

    France is a weird team to figure out.

  • Ted S.||

    You forgot me. :-(

    The German team was so pissed with their draw they went out and beat Werder Bremen 7-0. ;-)

  • Rhywun||

    Except BM is mostly non-Germans.

    That's what makes the WC exciting - the talent is more spread out.

  • robc||

    Im generally the opposite on the WC. I find it less interesting than league play.

    The talent is too balanced and in soccer it leads to lower scoring matches.

    What is the goals per game rate for say, the EPL vs the WC?

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    I'm more of club guy too. World Cup is awesome but nothing beats Champions League/Europa/Domestic league play.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    GPG means little to me.

    At the moment, EPL is 2.61, Bundesliga 3.26, Serie A 2.78 and Liga 2.89.

  • robc||

    GPG isnt the end all or anything, but it does matter. A 1-1 match is better than a 8-0 match, for example.

    You can have great low scoring matches, great high scoring matches, etc etc.

    But a 1-0 match is much more exciting if its a rarity of defense stepping up.

    It happens far too often in WC play.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Yeah. Can't disagree.

    2010 WC was rather 'boring.' For all the talk of Spanish flair, they won playing defense while being the lowest WC winning team in history.

  • Rhywun||

    The talent is too balanced

    That's a strange condemnation to make about a sporting contest. I don't even bother to tune into most of the top team matches any more because the result is so predictable.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    All great clubs have less natives in their starting 11. If you have four to seven you're doing ok. Bayern starts Neuer (one of the best keepers around), Boateng, Lahm, Mueller, Kroos and Gotze (I believe). Not bad.

  • Rhywun||

    All great clubs have less natives in their starting 11.

    Oh, no doubt, because they can afford it. German teams do seem to have more "natives" than, say, England.

    My local team, NY Red Bulls, often puts out a squad with 0 Americans.

  • Rhywun||

    (*Except the goalkeeper)

  • ||

    It's Finland for God's sake, there 12 feet snow 11 months out of the year, indoors it's like 3 feet of snow. If they take off their shoes they will get immediate frostbite.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Good point.

  • General Butt Naked||

    "My shoes are become death, the destroyer of legs."

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I could be getting the wrong Antti Hakala (maybe it's the John Smith of Finland), but the Antti Hakala I could find on Google was a comic actor. Are we sure this isn't some kind of a prank?

  • ||

    Maybe we should mandate by law that we all Mao suits and matching flat shoes. Haircuts should be uniform also.

    They wont admit it, but many proggies would be fine with this, because, you know, equality.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    There are many approved and stylish hairstyles for the heroic worker ants:
    http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/.....airstyles/

  • ||

    "...heroic worker ants:"

    I laughed.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Sounds like another of those resurrected stories from the 1970s.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    “Ultimately,” he tells me, “I think the new system will be a tremendous benefit to the City, food truck vendors and customers.”

    The vendors? The customers? What country are we suddenly living in when the common good doesn't just mean politicians and bureaucrats? I say the DC mayor and council are asleep at the wheel here (no pun intended or even really made).

  • Ken Shultz||

    We've been reduced to commenting on the sanity of the rules, now, (on just about every issue), and whenever that happens, it's basically an admission of defeat.

    Is the idea that we shouldn't make any rules about this kind of thing ever taken seriously by anybody anymore?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Just like all of that celebration of 'Repeal Day.' They didn't repeal jack, they just erected a bureaucracy expansion system, and the tradition continues in Colorado with pot.

    Tell Junior Johnson something related to alcohol manufacture was repealed.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Considering it's DC, any reduction in stupidity is a win.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    If roads were not owned by the government, this would not be an issue at all.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    "High heels could first be dropped to 40 millimetres and ultimately to 31 millimetres. Such a height maintains good health."

    An inch and a half? An inch and a quarter? Hell, my grandmother wore 3-inch-heels through most of her 70s.

  • ||

    That's because your grandma was a whore. A dirty little whore.

  • Ted S.||

    You know from experience? :-p

  • ||

    Well, it was either her or Epi's mom.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Rumor was she had a thing going with the butcher down the street so she could get extra food for her family during WWII rationing.

  • ||

    "Let me slip you the sausage and I'll slip you a little extra sausage"

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Pretty much. The Depression and WWII were tough times for her. Her mother was also living there, so on that basis and one of her own sons, their WWII Sons in Service Flags totaled four Blue Stars and one Gold (fallen).
    The lady did what she had to do with a house full of teenagers in a society where there was rationing and food shortages, and yet the USDA was still destroying crops and livestock.

  • ||

    While the US Constitution is badly frayed, be happy the 1A is in complete tatters yet, and one can still trash the Fed without fear of legal recrimination.

    Here in Czechia, the Czech National Bank devalued the currency because of fears of "deflation". This happened right before a giant purchase by the richest guy in the country, and there were rumours of foul play and criticism by a senator. The CNB has responded by saying it will "retaliate" legally although it hasn't said specifically what it plans to do.

    More here, can run it through Google translate if you care to bother.

    Czech National Bank will defend against allegations that the devaluation of the crown to enrich board members. Specific actions yet did not specify. Could be directed against associations of lawyers advising citizens or against Senator Vladimir Dryml, who criticized the CNB. Speculation is also that the devaluation earned PPF group.
  • BakedPenguin||

    Isn't that the Czech "People's" Bank? Or does 'Narodni' serve double duty?

  • ||

    Narodní usually means national, but the root of the word, rod means family and na would be the proposition, something like for, so "for one family" something like that.

  • BakedPenguin||

    IIRC, in Soviet days "narod" was used for "masses" (in Russian), but I can see how that fits.

  • ||

    I think it could mean "our people" in contexts like that. People in Czech is lidé as in "socialismus s lidskou tváří"--socialism with a human (person's) face

  • General Butt Naked||

    Apparently the right to butt fuck without government interference isn't enough...

    It seems that now you have the right to force someone to bake you a cake to celebrate your butt fucking.

    Not that there's anything wrong with butt fucking, but there is something wrong with forcing people to associate with those they disagree with.

  • BakedPenguin||

  • General Butt Naked||

    My link is better.

    Besides, I was sleeping when that was published. I work nights sometimes...

    I just got home about an hour ago, and will be going to bed soon. This is like late night postin' for me.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Just giving you a hard time. As for working nights, a warlord's career is a demanding one.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    The orphans require more whip men to keep them polishing the monocles at night. Order must be kept, monocles must be polished.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I quit warlordin' awhile ago. I work in a factory.

    I'll tell ya that I look goddamn ridiculous standin' there butt ass nekkid with a hard hat, steel toed boots and safety goggles on. But the rules the rules.

  • Ted S.||

    I don't think that I can take it,
    'Cause it took so long to bake it,
    And I'll never have that recipe again....

  • General Butt Naked||

    Here's what I don't get...

    Do you really want someone cooking food that you had to legally force them to make? I wouldn't.

    I'd rather go to the competition that says, "Hey, we're gay-friendly! Come try our cake!" Why give your business (and eat a suspicious cake) to people that hate you?

  • wareagle||

    ultimately, it's not about the cake or the flowers or the whatever else a merchant might not want to sell. It's about force, pure and simple; in this case, it's about forcing "correct" thoughts onto those who deviate from the hive.

  • General Butt Naked||

    You're, unfortunately, right.

    It's more important to force businesses to conform than it is to support businesses that cater (harhar) to them.

    It's sad really.

    If the reverse were true, say, Westboro Baptist wanting a cake from a gay-owned business, they should have the right to refuse as well. I wonder if people's averred beliefs would remain consistent in such a situation.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -If the reverse were true, say, Westboro Baptist wanting a cake from a gay-owned business, they should have the right to refuse as well. I wonder if people's averred beliefs would remain consistent in such a situation.

    And this is a great point. Gays have to realize there are far more people-who-dislike-gays than there are gays. The logical result of these laws and lawsuits is that a lot more gays are going to be forced to bake cakes for the National Organization for Marriage office birthday party than gays getting cakes from those who dislike gays will.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not think it is about the cake, and (at least to most of those who push this) it is not about forcing correct thoughts. I think it is about ending discrimination against them. Gays can point to a not to distant past when being an out gay person would get you treated differently in a lot of places, and they want that to stop. They figure if other groups get protections, then why not them?

    My issue with it is, other than the obvious NAP violation on what should be respected associational rights, is that I can not see how forcing people to serve you when they do not want to is going to advance gay-friendly attitudes. It is bound to do the opposite.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Not that I agree with the sentiment, but I think the next volley would be either to write a gay slur on it or bake it with cod liver oil.

    They think they can tell you WHAT customers to serve, will they next tell you HOW you must serve them?

  • ||

    Yes they will. It is inevitable.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Well, a business is obligated to provide the services they agree to provide in good quality. Deliberately delivering a poor quality or insulting product would be causing an actual harm to the gay couple. The problematic aspect is the business being legally barred from not accepting this particular class of customers.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I invoke sticks and stones.

    How is calling someone a name causing harm?

    1A.

    Baking a cake that tastes bad isn't harm either.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Presumably the customer contracted for a good tasting cake without slurs. Providing bad tasting cake on purpose violates the contract and therefore is a harm, ditto for the slur. Again, it is problematic because the government will not permit the baker to refuse such a contract, nor presumably indicate openly that he would prefer to not to enter into such a contract.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    a. Define good tasting. We simply have differing tastes.
    b. What contract? The cakemaker is being forced to make the cake against his will. There is no contract. Initiators of force will eat what they are given or not at all.

  • Mickey Rat||

    a. Please, you cannot suggest that the baker make a bad tasting cake as vengeance and then claim the baker does not know it is bad tasting. Without being a lying sack of shit, that is.

    b. The customers are not initiating force, the law is. I doubt the baker can make his objection known under the law as that would "invalidate" the customers.

    The law, and the premises it is built on is the problem. It is thoughtcrime and eliminates the option of letting people amiably disagree and let bygones be bygones.

  • ||

    Are there any Muslim owned businesses that have refused to serve gays on religious grounds? I bet there have been, but no one dares trying to make an example of them because it doesn't fit the Kulture War narrative.

  • MJGreen||

    Because they're assholes.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    If you just put on some pants, you wouldn't have to worry so much about butt fucking. ;)

  • General Butt Naked||

    This is offensive language and I'm reporting you to Obama.

    In addition, I, as a Naked-American, demand reparations for this injustice in the form of a fresh baked cake.

    NO JUSTICE, NO PANTS!

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Did you want the miniature jackboots on top, too?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Sounds like someone is itching to bake two cakes.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Well it is jackboots not jackboot.

  • robc||

    Fuck off, slavers.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Not that there's anything wrong with butt fucking, but there is something wrong with forcing people to associate with those they disagree with.

    More chinks out of 1A. I'm assuming the SCOTUS will have to hear this?

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    I saw that.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Gun control advocates are pressuring businesses to not allow firearms on their property. This is better than trying to change the law, but fuck 'em, it's still shitty.

    Question for the conceal carriers here:

    If you see a "no firearms" sign on a store window, do you go in or go somewhere else?

    Me? I never see signs like that because I don't look for 'em.

  • l0b0t||

    It depends upon urgency and convenience. The beauty of concealed carry is the concealed part; no one need ever know. Also, my right to self-defense trumps the feelings and fetishes of hoplophobes. Besides, what are they gonna do, stop me? I'm the one with the gun.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That's pretty much my take.

    Except for federal buildings. They have prison sentence to back up their policy.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -my right to self-defense trumps the feelings and fetishes of hoplophobes.

    Including their property rights? I am afraid I draw the line there myself. I respect the property rights, and the wishes related to that, of my (potential) hosts.

  • robc||

    Where is the line? Where does my person end and their property begin? I would argue that a concealed firearm is on my property, not theirs.

    They can ask me to leave, if I dont, Im trespassing.

  • robc||

    To clarify, I see a concealed weapon as no different than a weapon in a car.

    And if Im parking in your lot, the weapon is still on my property (the car), not yours. You can ask me to move my car for whatever reason you want, but you cant search my car without me giving you permission (although you could make the search a prerequisite for parking) so you wont ever no its there if it isnt in plain site.

    Same for concealed weapons on my person.

  • robc||

    know, not no.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Your weapon, in your car, is literally on their property.

    You are from KY where they have that awful law on the subject if I remember correctly.

    What if a person did not want any cars with pro-abortion bumper stickers to park on their lot. Are you going to argue that you should be able to park there regardless of their wishes? Should the state force him to allow you?

  • robc||

    Your weapon, in your car, is literally on their property.

    No, its on my property. My car is on their property. Im not sure standard math set theory applies in this case. In fact, it doesnt, IMO.

    You are from KY where they have that awful law on the subject if I remember correctly.

    ???

    What if a person did not want any cars with pro-abortion bumper stickers to park on their lot. Are you going to argue that you should be able to park there regardless of their wishes?

    Can you not fucking read? I said they can ask anyone for any reason to leave. So, if they see the bumper stickers, they can ask you to leave. If the bumper sticker is in your trunk, however, they could still ask you to leave, but how the fuck would they even know about it?

    Should the state force him to allow you?

    Of course not, how the fuck does that follow from what I said?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -its on my property. My car is on their property.

    So the gun is LITERALLY on their property, because as you concede it is on your property which is on theirs.

    - I said they can ask anyone for any reason to leave. So, if they see the bumper stickers

    So your position is essentially that it is ok to violate the terms of entry onto another's property as long as you can conceal it from them and they do not physically/verbally call you out on it? That is going to take you some strange places.

    -Should the state force him to allow you?

    Of course not, how the fuck does that follow from what I said?

    -Several states have adopted “workplace protection” gun statutes that allow concealed handgun licensees to keep a handgun in their personal vehicle on their employer’s parking lot. The statutory language varies greatly, but the laws essentially “prohibit both public and private employers from restricting their employees’ possession of firearms.” States that have enacted workplace protection laws include Maine, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Utah, Minnesota, Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Indiana, Idaho, Arizona, Louisiana.

  • robc||

    So the gun is LITERALLY on their property, because as you concede it is on your property which is on theirs.

    Nice cut in the quotes, where you leave out the part where I say that it doesnt work like math sets.

    A in B and B in C implies A in C works for math sets.

    Im claiming its not the same for property. My car B may be on propety C, while my gun A is on property B, and that does not mean my gun A is on property C.

    Property doesnt work that way.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Property doesnt work that way.

    Under our legal system it does.

    As noted, try to enter into an area where X is illegal to be in possession of X on your person and argue in court that you are not in violation because X was not on the property, just on you and you were on the property.

    Good luck.

  • robc||

    Under our legal system it does.

    Who is accepting that as a premise?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You do not accept the premise, OK, when you said 'property does not work that way' I assumed you were referring to how property rights work in our world rather than your personal philosophy of property.

  • robc||

    The real world is how the world should be.

    The fake world is how it actually is. We live in fantasy.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -We live in fantasy.

    After reading your comment on this I would agree that one of us does ;)

  • robc||

    You arent the first person to bitch about me arguing from how the world should be. If, and when, Im arguing from the current law, I will make it very damn clear.

    You would know this if you had lurked for a while. :)

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If they put a sign up asking you not to bring a gun onto their property then you have violated their property rights by doing so. To argue that you are only doing so if you refuse to leave after being confronted does not hold water. By that logic I can come relax in your backyard hammock unless you tell me verbally to leave, and only when I refuse have I disrespected or violated your property rights.

  • robc||

    Analogy doesnt hold.

    See mine above. The gun is NEVER on their property if it remains on my property.

  • robc||

    You do acknowledge my self-ownership?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That is ridiculous because your person is on their property.

    Try this analogy: you post a sign on your property saying 'no political campaigning or solicitations on this property.' So I come on your property holding a 'Vote Obama' placard. Under your view I have only done wrong when I refuse to leave upon you confronting me about it. But surely you have the right to put a sign up indicating the terms upon which you admit entry onto your property.

  • robc||

    Under your view I have only done wrong when I refuse to leave upon you confronting me about it.

    Correct.

    But surely you have the right to put a sign up indicating the terms upon which you admit entry onto your property.

    Not everyone can read, especially Obama supporters. I can expect them to follow it. I need to enforce my rules.

    A barricade is a symbol that says "no entrance without permission". An open door is different. Asking them to leave is your duty of enforcing the policy.

    Posting the sign is nice, as they wont make a fuss when you ask them to leave.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So if I stand at the entrance of the property and say 'you may enter upon the following terms' and you enter in violation of those terms? And me posting a sign to the same effect?

  • robc||

    In both cases, you can ask me to leave.

    It may be a tort, if I do damage by lying to you at the door, but it aint criminal trespassing until I refuse to leave or force my way past a barrier, even a symbolic one.

    If you let me in, you have let me in.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -It may be a tort, if I do damage by lying to you at the door, but it aint criminal trespassing

    Wait, now who is accepting the premises supplied by current tort and criminal law?

    More importantly, you are simply back to this idea that you are not violating property rights until you refuse to leave when asked. So all unattended property around the world is fair game for you.

  • robc||

    Wait, now who is accepting the premises supplied by current tort and criminal law?

    You.

    Im arguing what libertopia would be like. Libertopia would still have torts and crimes, it aint Anarchatopia. It might (probably) would even be based on English common law, at least in part.

  • robc||

    So all unattended property around the world is fair game for you.

    Works for me.

    Within reason.

    Its like the expectation of privacy concept. Its pretty clear when an actual violation of property occurs. And parking a car in your lot with a firearm or bumpersticker out of sight clearly isnt a violation. Or concealing a firearm.

    Growing up, neither my parents nor the people behind us had a fence. We were the only back-to-back combo like that along our street, so it was a common cut thru. If people cut thru along the edge of the properties without messing with anything they werent trespassing (in my view). Unless us or the neighbor behind had told them to get off the property. Hopping a fence to cut thru is different.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Unless us or the neighbor behind had told them to get off the property.

    But not in a sign? They had to set up a tent in that area and do it in person? That strikes me as incoherent.

  • robc||

    A fence is the easiest way. That is what everyone else did.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Under your logic the fence can just be hopped, as long as you are not confronted and asked to leave everything is OK, right?

  • robc||

    Under your logic the fence can just be hopped, as long as you are not confronted and asked to leave everything is OK, right?

    Nope. I see reading is hard for you.

    Physical barriers, even symbolic ones like velvet ropes, should not be forcibly crossed without permission.

    Expectation. A fence creates an expectation. You are arguing a sign does the same thing, Im disagreeing.

  • robc||

    Or, to put it in a way that maybe you will understand, "Good fences make good neighbors."

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So, a physical barrier, even symbolic ones, which is at best an implied suggestion one is not to enter has more force in your philosophy than an explicit statement in writing from the owner. That is...interesting.

  • robc||

    Its hard to miss a fence. A sign can be not seen or ignored or etc. Do you read all signs on all doors? I dont. In fact, I read a very tiny percentage of signs. A fence though, I ususally see that. And those times I havent, one of my other senses usually picks it up (with some painful reminders to pay more damn attention).

    A fence is a physical barrier. Even a velvet rope caused effort to get over.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Its hard to miss a fence. A sign can be not seen or ignored or etc.

    This is getting more ridiculous, and I submit to you that are straining to reconcile your passion for guns with libertarian philosophy regarding property rights.

    To show you how strained this is, let us think of a very low hanging velvet rope, one that can be quite easily stepped over. I have seen these before. According to you this subtle, implicit, admittedly 'symbolic' thing should be given recognition, but a huge sign staying 'STAY OUT!' should not.

    That is ludicrous. A rope of even a fence at the most 'sends a message,' an actual noticeable declared message in writing can not be given less weight than that.

  • robc||

    You seem to be missing some fundamental premises of my argument here.

    See the last 10 years of my posts on:

    1. Natural Law Property
    2. Single Land Tax
    3. Intellectual Property

    It will make this go much smoother. Im not going to repeat myself, much.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am certainly not going 'see the last ten years' of your posts on these matters. If you want your position to sound less incoherent to me then you are going to have to explain why in this discussion.

  • robc||

    I am certainly not going 'see the last ten years' of your posts on these matters. If you want your position to sound less incoherent to me then you are going to have to explain why in this discussion.

    And this is why I said you should lurk for 3 to 6 months before posting.

    Im not going to repeat myself. Personally, I think #2 in the list should clarify it for you.

  • nipplemancer||

    A better analogy would be if I posted a sign that said not politicking and you had pamphlets in your pocket. Are you violating the rule? Yes. Do I know about it? Not unless you tell me.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So you are saying you can violate the terms of entry a property owner notifies you about as long as you can conceal that violation from them?

  • nipplemancer||

    I'm just pointing out that your analogy was a little off. The point of concealed carry is that no one knows it is there. Your analogy had a person violating a no politicking rule by entering the property with a placard out in the open.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I see, and you are right the analogy is tighter that way, but I think a person has a moral and legal duty to comply with a person's rights, even when they could get away with doing otherwise via concealment so it does little to my overall point.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    "but I think a person has a moral and legal duty to comply with a person's rights, "

    So, you agree the shop owner's sign violates my right to bear arms?

    Or does this moral and legal duty only apply to porperty rights in your mind?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The shop owner violates your rights by what, imposing terms on your entry onto HIS property? What in the world?

    If you go to go onto an owner's property, say a studio where a meditation class is going on, and the owner says 'you can come on in, but no talking' are you going to argue that he has somehow violated your right to free speech?

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    "The shop owner violates your rights by what, imposing terms on your entry onto HIS property?"

    Yes, and the terms violate my rights.

    What are you not understanding? Do I not have a right to bear arms?

    YOU SAID "but I think a person has a moral and legal duty to comply with a person's rights,"

    If you BELEIVE that, then the sign violates my rights, irrespective of the legal aspect of said sign, or the rights of the property owner to post it.

    Do you not undwerstand your own attempt at an argument?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Yes, and the terms violate my rights.

    You do not have a right to free speech on other people's property without their consent, nor do you have a right bear arms on other people's property without the same. So no, a person telling you that you cannot speak or bear on their property is in no way disrespecting your rights.

    Property owners do have a right as to what and whom they allow on their property, and by violating the terms of entry you are disrespecting and violating that right.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    "You do not have a right to free speech on other people's property "

    Nowhere did I calim such a right.

    I'm basing my statements on YOUR CLAIM that "but I think a person has a moral and legal duty to comply with a person's rights,".

    This is YOUR claim. Why do you not get this?

  • robc||

    "You do not have a right to free speech on other people's property "

    Actually, you do.

    If they dont want you speaking, they can ask you to leave. But your free speech rights still exist.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -If they dont want you speaking, they can ask you to leave. But your free speech rights still exist.

    If your free speech rights exist, how can they ask you to stop speaking and leave?

    Are you arguing that them telling you before entry not to speak on their land is a violation of your speech rights, but them telling you after is not?

    In fact neither are. You never had a right to speak on another's property without their consent.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I have explained this directly above your post here. You can address my explanation in a non-deranged fashion and I would be happy to comment on it.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    "I have explained this directly above your post here. "

    And I have eviscerated your failed attempt at an explanation.

    In addition, trying to run from the debate on the lame assertion that your opponent is deranged is a garbage move by a garbage poster.

    If such things worked, no one would ever engage you because you're so frequently only here to troll and incite.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -And I have eviscerated your failed attempt at an explanation.

    You have said nothing in response to it.

    Your argument is (removing the deranged all caps and repetition) 'you said a person has a moral and legal duty to comply with another's rights, so do you not have to agree that an owner telling you not to carry or speak (which you have a right to) is not complying with your rights.'

    And I explained that since the right to carry and speak are not rights to do so on the property of other people without their consent they have not stopped complying with either right by asking you not to do so on their property.

    And you have said not a thing in response to that.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    "Your argument is (removing the deranged all caps and repetition) 'you said a person has a moral and legal duty to comply with another's rights, so do you not have to agree that an owner telling you not to carry or speak (which you have a right to) is not complying with your rights.'

    And I explained that since the right to carry and speak are not rights to do so on the property of other people without their consent they have not stopped complying with either right by asking you not to do so on their property."

    And as I have told you, that conflicts directly with YOUR CLAIM that "I think a person has a moral and legal duty to comply with a person's rights".

    You are attempting to have it both ways, and obviously failing.

    And as an aside, fuck you. I USE CAPS WHENEVER THE FECK I PLIS. That it annoys you means I'LL DO IT MORE.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    "And I explained that since the right to carry and speak are not rights to do so on the property of other people without their consent "

    And by the way, that's patetntly and provably wrong.

    People carry and speak freely on the property of other people all the time "without their consent", that you would even attempt to make such a claim is laughable.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -People carry and speak freely on the property of other people all the time "without their consent",

    That something occurs 'all the time' does not make it correct. Governments take taxes from me all the time though I do not think it right.

    More specifically, as long as there is no statement (verbal, written, or implied) by the landowner that one invited onto property does not allow speaking, carrying or what have you, then it is implied that they can. But if there is, then you can be legally ejected from the premises and have legal action taken against you for entering in violation of the express terms of entry.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -And as I have told you, that conflicts directly with YOUR CLAIM that "I think a person has a moral and legal duty to comply with a person's rights".

    I have given you my answer as to why it does not conflict and as with many deranged people and/or trolls you are just repeating your initial comment, long after that.

    -I USE CAPS WHENEVER THE FECK I PLIS. That it annoys you means I'LL DO IT MORE.

    By all means, do so.

  • robc||

    shut the fuck up has a good point.

    Rights are never in conflict. When you think they are, one of the rights doesnt actual extend that far.

    Considering my view on property rights (or lack thereof), Im gonna go with the right to bear arms in this case.

    Self ownership is the clear first principle that the NAP is based on. And the right to bear arms comes directly from self ownership.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Yes, rights are never in conflict, which is why I said the right to bear arms does not include the right to bear arms on people's property who do not want you to, anymore than the right to free speech allows you to speak on one's property that does not want you to. Someone who tells you that you can not bear arms or speak on their property is in no way infringing either right.

    However, a person speaking or carrying on someone's property who has made not speaking or carrying a term of entry is indeed violating the property rights of the owner.

    There is indeed no conflict.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    "which is why I said the right to bear arms does not include the right to bear arms on people's property"

    That was never my claim, can you not read?

    I'm basing my statements on YOUR CLAIM that "but I think a person has a moral and legal duty to comply with a person's rights,".

    This is YOUR claim. Why do you not get this?

  • robc||

    Free speech and right to bear always exist, even on others property.

    They can ask you to leave if they dont like your speech or bearing.

    See below for theatre example.

    I agree there is no conflict, the right to speech and bear never go away, you just might be asked to leave.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If they can ask you leave then how do you have free speech there?

    You are trying to argue: 'you have the right to free speech when told not to speak upon entry, but if told not to and to leave afterwards you do not.'

    Your problem is not recognizing that the right to free speech and to carry are rights against government infringement. You have no right to speak or carry on the property of others, though they can of course allow you to do so.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    "If they can ask you leave then how do you have free speech there?"

    How do you not?

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    "Your problem is not recognizing that the right to free speech and to carry are rights against government infringement. "

    Why Bo is so frequently wrong, in a nutshell.

    Thank you Bo, we're done here.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    And please, stop with the stupid fucking analogies, they're bad, innacurate, and ineffective.

    On top of being proof of a weak argument.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You are free to show how the analogies are inapt my friend.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    "You are free to show how the analogies are inapt my friend."

    And you are free to debate more efrfectively, no longer requiring half the thread to clear up your analogies.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    "are you going to argue that he has somehow violated your right to free speech?"

    Who cares, we're talking about taking a gun onto provate property.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    YOU SAID "YOU SAID "but I think a person has a moral and legal duty to comply with a person's rights,"

    YOU SAID IT.

    For some reason, this does not include property owners in your mind.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I see, you are deranged in some way.

    Carry on.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    Oh ok, you can't refute me, because you relaized I was using your words.

    So I guess I'm deranged, which is a neat trick for you to use one you've realiazed your wrong aqnd can't do anything about it.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    Did you notice how, once I destroyed his stupid refutations, and asked him to avoid the intenionally useless analogies, which were obviously used in an attempt to disguise his ignorance, that he simply called names and ran?

    I did.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Here's the rub: In PA (as I'm sure is true in many states) the manager of an establishment is a proxy for ownership decisions. Even if a place has a pro-firearms sign in the front window the manager can ask gun totin' people to leave if the owners aren't there.

    The way I figure it is, that if I go into a place with a sign prohibiting concealed weapons but the manager doesn't say anything, he, as a proxy for ownership, doesn't mind firearms.

    Besides, if a place like Kmart has a no-guns policy, and I carry into there, whose property rights have been violated? The stockholders? The middle manager that came up with the policy?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -but the manager doesn't say anything

    Does he know? If the manager knows and allows it then I think that trumps the sign. But to argue that an unknowing manager, by not saying anything about that which he does not know, has trumped the sign placed there (by the owners or other managers) strikes me as terrible sophistry.

    -if a place like Kmart has a no-guns policy, and I carry into there, whose property rights have been violated?

    Whose rights do you violate if you break into it after hours (both are entries without consent [entry in violation of a stated condition of entry is not consented to by the owner or manager])?

  • robc||

    Does he know?

    Its called concealed carry for a reason. He has eyes. If he sees the bulge on the hip and suspects, he can ask you to leave. If he doesnt see it, why does it matter?

    While they may not post a sign, Wal-mart probably doesnt want drunks staggering around their establishment. If they see someone drunk, they will ask them to leave. If you can handle your booze, they will never know.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -If he sees the bulge on the hip and suspects, he can ask you to leave. If he doesnt see it, why does it matter?

    You are just going back to 'it is ok to enter onto someone's property in violation of the terms you were admitted as long as they do not catch you.' That is a strange view of rights for someone who has told me they hate utilitarianism so!

  • General Butt Naked||

    So if a corporate manager sets a no-gun policy without consent of stockholders and a store manager explicitly allows conceal carry has someone's property rights been violated?

    The thing is, I think that carrying in violation of a sign is imposing on someone's property rights. It's just that I think it's such a minor imposition that they're only recourse should be to tell you to leave. Force could only be used if you refuse.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -The thing is, I think that carrying in violation of a sign is imposing on someone's property rights. It's just that I think it's such a minor imposition that they're only recourse should be to tell you to leave. Force could only be used if you refuse.

    That sounds reasonable to me, I take robc to be arguing that it is not a violation of the property owner's rights unless they ask you to leave and you refuse.

  • ||

    I'm confused where you think their property rights are being violated.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    When a person enters in violation of the terms the property owner allowed them entry on. If you are walking your dog and you walk by my yard and we start to talk, and you say 'can I come onto your yard' and I say 'sure, but you can not bring that dog,' then you violate my property rights if you enter with the dog. And you violate them even if you were to put the dog under your coat and I did not see the dog, and you would violate them if, instead of me telling you that, I had a sign up that said 'feel free to come onto my yard, but under no circumstances are you allowed to bring a dog onto it.'

  • ||

    Having my dog with me is not an inalienable natural right.

    Having a way to defend myself or speaking ARE.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    If I see the sign, I make a point of telling the manager he's losing my business, hand him a business card and tell him to call me when the sign comes down.

  • General Butt Naked||

    What about the "checking your firearm at the counter" thing?

    There's a sporting goods store that I go to that has a sign that tells you to do just that. The thing is, the person at the counter is always some 16 year old kid. I am not taking out my firearm and handing it over to some kid. Besides, the gun is much safer in its holster. Taking it out and removing the round in the chamber and the magazine are all points where a negligent discharge could happen (besides, don't need someone freaking out seeing me take out my gun at the counter).

  • Cdr Lytton||

    I can only see checking the firearm if you're selling it or otherwise going to take it out once you go in. If it stays concealed, no counter check.

    One positive thing about Oregon is that there isn't a formal sign that disallows concealed carry. Property owners can exclude concealed carry but the general consensus is that you can carry in such establishments unless they specifically ask to leave and only if you then refuse would it be considered trespassing.

  • General Butt Naked||

    PA's the same. They can put up a sign, but it doesn't have force of law unless they specifically ask you to leave and you refuse.

  • robc||

    KY is also the same.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    What about the "checking your firearm at the counter" thing?

    Same deal. Not happening. Buh-bye until this is changed. When you decide you want my business, please give me a call. Here's my card.

    The rest was a generally great post, BTW.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Yeah, I have a friend who does this. He's not afraid of a bit of confrontation because he open carries (lives in TN) and posts a rant on Facebook about boycotting businesses that won't let him bring his gun in. I gotta respect him for sticking to his principles.

  • pan fried wylie||

    I gotta respect him for sticking to his principles.

    PRINCIPLES?!?!??!!

    There's nothing else more appropriate he could stick to in this context? Nothing?

  • Live Free or Diet||

    I don't see anything inappropriate in his behavior.
    Not that I would call what I do confrontation. I'm quiet and calm as I explain this is where I would otherwise prefer to spend my money, but I will be helping his competitors instead due to this policy.

  • ||

    We used to have those signs here and there around town, but they seem to have all disappeared. Even the ones at Walmart....poof!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Walmart follows whatever state law is applicable.

    Now, some managers take it upon themselves to harass OCers or people printing. When corporate gets called they get an ass chewing and the customer gets an apology.

    Happened a few times to guys on the PA internet gun board.

  • SweatingGin||

    I rarely see signs in MI. I can't think of when I have. I expect I'll go with Live Free's plan below if it comes up.

    Ohio is rotten with postings. IIRC, they just changed the laws on rest stops.

    Note that it depends on the state what force of law the signs have. Check and be sure.

  • Entropy Void||

    Just where do you conceal your weapon if you have no pants?


    Oh.

    Never mind.

  • Live Free or Diet||

    Just where do you conceal your weapon if you have no pants?

    Shoulder holster? Tuck it in your sock? The right hat might work...

  • General Butt Naked||

    Anyone else notice that the names on the reason web-a-thon ticker at the top of the screen just aren't as funny as in previous years?

  • ||

    Yes. And I also noticed that Palin's B. Plug donated. I guess he really is 98% libertarian.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Where are the names posted?

    I'm planning to donate but haven't decided the amount.

  • General Butt Naked||

    They're at the top of the screen. It cycles through all those that wish to have their donation made public.

    It used to be an excuse for hijynx (sp? whatever...) but now is actually people's names.

  • SweatingGin||

    The only shenanigans I could come up with for it was a Postrel hates us joke, and I wasn't sure about trying to get that through.

  • Sevo||

    The spoofin's is still there; Warty's Futurecock just got a shout-out.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "The exploited laborers of the liberal media"

    The author was an intern for a "do-gooder" journalistic outfit, whose boss made 100 gs a year. He didn't even get the minimum wage and had to work a second (real) job, supplemented by stipends from his parents.

    Presumably, the liberal media made rational economic choices in using these interns, but they don't want to allow that option to other, non-do-gooder employers.

    http://www.vice.com/read/the-e.....eral-media

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Guess what Mandela legalized?

    http://www.lifenews.com/2013/1.....abortions/

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Liberal/progressives see nothing wrong with this. Just saying.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think any one who just does not recognize fetuses to be human persons with rights would see nothing wrong with this. That would include anyone who holds centuries old common law view of this.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    RJF,

    Nat Hentoss is a prog, and he's against it.

    And I think I heard about this liberal/progressive guy in Europe who' against abortion, too. What was his name?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Hentoff

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I agree with Eduard here. If a progressive thought that a fetus-to-be-aborted was a human person with rights then they would be a quite horrible person to sanction it, and if a conservative thought a fetus-to-be-aborted were not a human person with rights then they would be a quite horrible person to suggest it be prohibited.

  • robc||

    Exactly. The libertarian position on abortion should be exactly the same for everyone.

    Its just where that line is drawn that would vary with the individual.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I agree, with one caveat.

    The way the LP has stood on the issue is this: if there is an issue of morality that is clearly not obvious to people of good faith, then the state should not take either side. I do not know if that view is as tenable as I once did, but it has a nice 'err on the side of non-coercion' theme I quite agree with.

  • robc||

    The LP has been all over the place on the issue.

    That might be the current standard, I dont know, but in the time Ive been following them, its been everywhere. Depends who has the majority at the LP convention that particular year.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -The LP has been all over the place on the issue.

    Can you site a national LP platform supporting government prohibition of abortion? I am not saying you can not, just that I have not seen one.

  • robc||

    I dont see the need for the caveat. Lawmakers will draw the line and it may move as majorities move.

    I know you hate the "local rule" thing, but as long as the rule follows libertarian principles, what is wrong with letting it vary from locality to locality?

    I know we disagree on this, but Im a libertarian in philosophy but a federalist (or really a subsidiaryist) in government style.

    I just want my localist decision makers making the decisions from a libertarian philosophy.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -what is wrong with letting it vary from locality to locality?

    Because as you concede if the locality is wrong about the fetus-being-a-human-person-with-rights issue then they are engaging in a pretty monsterous act of coercion.

    The only thing that makes, say, gambling or drug use or other consensual behavior between adults different than abortion is if the fetus is a rights bearing human person. If not, then it falls into the same area as many other things that I do not think we should leave up to local coercion any more than state or federal. And as it is not obvious there local governments should not intervene.

  • robc||

    Because as you concede if the locality is wrong

    Its an even bigger monstrous act of coercion when the Feds are wrong.

    And I can walk into my Mayor's office (city of 5k people) and bitch at him directly. Doesnt work with Obama. Doesnt really work with my city of 600k either, but does a little. (Yes, 2 cities, Im royally fucked).

    Hell, if he is monstrous enough, I know where my Mayor lives. I can take the fucker out. Once again, doesnt work so well at the Federal level.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    robc, I think you are missing the point.

    Perhaps a federal system where most decisions are made locally produces better overall liberty than alternatives, but that does not mean that it is acceptable, from a libertarian philosophical perspective, for a local government to violate the NAP.

    Now abortion is not clearly a violation of the NAP or not, so the argument is that in areas where it is so unclear the government, local or not, should stay out.

  • robc||

    Perhaps a federal system where most decisions are made locally produces better overall liberty than alternatives, but that does not mean that it is acceptable, from a libertarian philosophical perspective, for a local government to violate the NAP.

    I think you are missing the point.

    Im arguing your first clause and, of course, I agree with the latter clause too.

    But the first clause is important for the structure of government. Once that structure is in place, yeah, you have to fight at every level to make sure they are doing things the right way. But at least many of the fights are local.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    And what I am saying, what the LP is saying, is that on matters where honest people can disagree, governments, local and not, should not use coercive measures to intervene.

  • robc||

    on matters where honest people can disagree, governments, local and not, should not use coercive measures to intervene.

    And Im saying that logic does not follow.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    In what way? That governments should intervene on non-obvious matters that may be matters of voluntary transaction, or that it is OK for localities to do so when it would be wrong for states or the federal government to do the same?

  • robc||

    so the argument is that in areas where it is so unclear the government, local or not, should stay out.

    No, the argument is that they should apply the law as they best see fit without violating the NAP.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    You know what would eliminate abortion?

    Buttfucking.

    Discuss.

  • robc||

    You know what would end the AIDS threat in the gay community (straight community too, but not as big an issue in the USA): Monogamy. Serious, hardcore, lifetime monogamy. No serial monogamy. Real swan*-like monogamy.

    *is it swans? Were all the dinosaurs monogamous?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Perhaps recognizing gay marriages might promote that?

  • robc||

    Yeah right, like straight marriage has promoted monogamy amongst straights.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Married people are more likely to stay together than cohabitating people.

  • robc||

    Who said anything about staying together?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am guessing staying together has something to do with how monogamous a couple is.

  • robc||

    I am guessing staying together has something to do with how monogamous a couple is.

    1. Most couples arent "lifetime monogamous" by the time they get together in the first place.

    2. Nothing about separation that prevents them from staying monogamous.

    3. Plenty of couples that are together arent monogamous even within their time frame together.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    All of them except the brontosaurus. Those guys were total perverts. When I do my time-travel stories I'll give some details.

  • Raven Nation||

    OT & just to fuel an ongoing HnR argument, Voyager may NOT have left the solar system:

    http://physicsbuzz.physicscent.....ystem.html

  • ||

    Every time I hear big news in this area it makes it seem almost like we really dont know nearly as much as we think we do about the universe.

    I remember a HS science teacher back in the day nearly having a stroke when I said it was extremely naive and conceited to believe that all life in the universe resided on earth.

    "There are not other planetary systems" was his reply.

    "Yep, our sun is the most common of all types of stars, and the planets are a by-product of it's formation. There are countless trillions of other stars identical to it out there, and yet none but our sun managed to form planets."

    Ever since then it has been one paradigm shattering discovery after another.

  • Raven Nation||

    I listen to the Astronomycast podcasts (although I'm a couple of years behind) and they often either have to repeat a subject within a couple of years b/c the science has changed OR hold off on doing a subject because the science is changing. It really is astounding.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I also noticed that Palin's B. Plug donated. I guess he really is 98% libertarian.

    Paying protection money is not libertarian!

  • Raven Nation||

    Probably a bit of gratitude as well. Where else could he post those kinds of comments and get dozens of people responding to them.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Where else could he post those kinds of comments and get dozens of people responding to them.

    Yeah, and he made MILLIONS shorting gold. He can afford to toss a few scraps in the reason pot.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Nice Forbes on Fox just came on. They opened with Jefe Zero's whine about income inequality; now Ungar is calling for wholesale confiscation of kkkorporate profits.

  • ||

    I am puzzled as to why U.S. Corps have moved most of their operations overseas and just keep one toe planted her in the Motherland.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You know those tip jars in Dunkin Donuts stores? Wel, in Massachusetts the Dunkin Donuts people want the right to share those tips with higher-ranking employees, like the guys who open up and close the store. You see, a state statute prevents "managers" from sharing in tips given to an entire establishment as opposed to an individual server. And the courts in class-action lawsuits (of *course* there were class-action lawsuits) have a broad definition of management. The sponsor of the law admits the definition of management may have been too broad, but his intentions were good, because he was just trying to stop Corporate Exploitation.

    http://www.masslive.com/politi.....chang.html

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And of course some DD franchises in Mass have rationally responded to the threat of lawsuites by getting rid of the top jars altogether.

  • Rhywun||

    You know those tip jars in Dunkin Donuts stores?

    No, because tips are for servers, not counter staff.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Heard an outrageous story on public radio yesterday about the NY Attorney General filing against Airbnb, a company that coordinates willing home owners willing to rent rooms with guests to the area, for not paying taxes levied on hotels. The woman focused on in the story had lost her job in the recession and (barely) paid her mortgage by renting out rooms in her house. The representative from the AG's office literally said 'these people are costing US a lot of money by not paying hotel taxes.' Because the money is the NY state government's, of course.

    Could not find the original story, but the link below discusses the sordid situation:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....irbnb.html

  • robc||

    reason has run stories on this.

    With the hot aussie (new zealand?) reporter.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Oppenheimer?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I liked that NPR noted it, and that the Daily Beast article condemned it too. Hopefully even non-libertarians can see the pettiness and rent seeking going on, if nothing else.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    According to our model, our model is correct.

    We find, for example, that a bump down in the unemployment rate from its current rate of 7 percent to say, 6.5 percent, would lift the real earnings of low-wage workers by around 10 percent, middle-wage around 4 percent, and nothing at the top. What's so notable about these findings is that they push in precisely the opposite direction of the factors that have been driving inequality up in America since the latter 1970s. Too often policy makers decry these factors -- globalization, technology, less union power -- as inevitable and thus unstoppable. They forget, or never learned, that full employment is a potent antidote.

    At least they recognize (maybe) the distinction between wages set by market forces and arbitrary magical minimum wage legislation.

    Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein are still both idjits.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Unfair competition is unfair.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Perhaps recognizing gay marriages might promote that?

    Only government certification can fix this problem!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The entire theory of social conservatives regarding gay marriage is that the state can (and should) promote/foster certain marriages by recognizing them and not others. Now, I would rather the state stay out of the business altogether, but if you want certain marriages promoted, and if that promotes monogamy, then it is at least debatable to me that recognizing marriages might do that.

  • robc||

    if that promotes monogamy

    It doesnt.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Do you have any evidence that married couples are not any more sexually monogamous than unmarried couples?

  • robc||

    No.

    But for those that it does apply, I think you have the cause and effect backwards.

    Those who are monogamous are more likely to choose to get married.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -Those who are monogamous are more likely to choose to get married.

    Why is that, you think?

  • robc||

    Why is that, you think?

    Usually religious reasons. Marriage doesnt promote monogamy, but does reinforce it for those who go into the marriage that way.

    But honestly, how many marriages occur in which one (or both) of the partners have only had sex with the other partner?

    I know of some. But marriage didnt promote their monogamy. Usually, religious views did. And marriage was the next step in that relationship.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think the more monogamous couples may choose marriage more because marriage is seen as an expression of their monogamous intent or as 'cementing' that intent, that is, that entering into a public statement, making a public vow, and entering the many legal statuses that marriage confers, will indeed provide incentives for monogamous faithfulness that would not otherwise exist.

  • robc||

    more monogamous

    Is that like more unique?
    ---
    You could be right, but I dont see it as a big factor. I think the committed lifetime monogamous dont need marriage to stay monogamous, but do it as part of the commitment for religious and social reasons.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I agree that was awkwardly put, I meant more inclined to monogamy.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The idea is that a same sex couple cannot be engaged in marriage. It is a category error.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Krugabe explains it.

    This isn’t entirely new terrain for Mr. Obama. What struck me about this speech, however, was what he had to say about the sources of rising inequality. Much of our political and pundit class remains devoted to the notion that rising inequality, to the extent that it’s an issue at all, is all about workers lacking the right skills and education. But the president now seems to accept progressive arguments that education is at best one of a number of concerns, that America’s growing class inequality largely reflects political choices, like the failure to raise the minimum wage along with inflation and productivity.

    And because the president was willing to assign much of the blame for rising inequality to bad policy, he was also more forthcoming than in the past about ways to change the nation’s trajectory, including a rise in the minimum wage, restoring labor’s bargaining power, and strengthening, not weakening, the safety net.

    How about those new business formation numbers, little buddy? Any potential relationship between all those government-imposed additional costs and people deciding whether or not to risk their asses in a new business?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    if you want certain marriages promoted, and if that promotes monogamy, then it is at least debatable to me that recognizing marriages might do that.

    I don't.

    I couldn't care less who or what you stick your dick in.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Second, Mr. Obama isn’t running for re-election. At this point, he needs to be measured not by his poll numbers but by his achievements, and his health reform, which represents a major strengthening of America’s social safety net, is a huge achievement. He’ll be considered one of our most important presidents as long as he can defend that achievement and fend off attempts to tear down other parts of the safety net, like food stamps. And by making a powerful, cogent case that we need a stronger safety net to preserve opportunity in an age of soaring inequality, he’s setting himself up for exactly such a defense.

    Fuck you, America! I'm President, I can do anything I want.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The government is throwing money away!

    When an individual makes a donation to a qualifying organization, the federal government essentially pays a portion of that donation: A $1,000 donation from a donor in the highest tax bracket costs that donor only $604. The federal government kicks in the remaining $396 in the form of a reduction in taxes.

    These charitable donations are estimated to cost the federal government almost $40 billion this year alone and over half a trillion dollars in the next 10 years. What is the public getting for this investment of resources? Sadly, not enough.

    That was pretty much as far as I got.

    Not taking is giving.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Not quite. The government has first claim on your income, before you. What you take home is what the government generously allows you to have.

  • MJGreen||

    WHAAAAT THE FUUUUUUCK

  • General Butt Naked||

    Not taking is giving.

    Not quite correct. More like: Giving is taking.

    It's holding two contradictory notions without issue.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Joe Nocera takes a day off from being crazy as a shithouse rat.

    Yes, users can be hooked on nicotine, which is a stimulant. But people who “vape” are not going to die, at least not from inhaling their cigarette.

    You’d think that the public health community would be cheering at the introduction of electronic cigarettes. We all know how hard it is to quit smoking. We also know that nicotine replacement therapies, like the patch, haven’t worked especially well. The electronic cigarette is the first harm-reduction product to gain serious traction among American smokers.

  • Rhywun||

    Two comments in... "but they're ADDICTS!!1!1!"

    And that is your concern... why?

  • robc||

    A perfect example for the argument above (no idea where to put it, so down here it goes) is the movie theatre.

    People who talk in movie theatres are assholes. There are signs and even verbal announcements telling them to keep their yappers quite.

    And yet, they arent trespassing when they talk. The ushers can and should, kick their asses out of the theatre, but they arent trespassing until they refuse.

    Its the exact same fucking thing. This isnt an analogy, its the exact same thing just with speech instead of carry.

  • robc||

    However, to continue, if they dont buy a ticket and hop across the velvet rope and race into a theatre, they are trespassing.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -However, to continue, if they dont buy a ticket and hop across the velvet rope and race into a theatre, they are trespassing.

    So if they hop a velvet rope and enter they are trespassing, but if there is a huge sign on the door they race into that says 'No ticket, no entry!' according to you, no problem.

    Sheesh, robc.

  • shut the fuck up mary||

    " but if there is a huge sign on the door they race into that says 'No ticket, no entry!' according to you, no problem."

    He never said that. Why do you insist on doing that?

    Do you think you convince people when you do that? Or that your neat little fabricated gotcha proves something, when he didn't say what you're gotcha-ing him about?

    We can see the discussion. It's the thought process that makes you resort to terrible analogies, you think drawing tangential comparisons, and making specious claims about others' assertions, will allow you to avoid the lack of consistency in your own arguments.

    Why do you think it's not obvious, what you're doing?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Your trolling would be less transparent if you would take the time to read the posts of the person you are ostensibly reading. The first part of robc's post is about the inadequacy of signs in his theory, and he has been quite clear in our conversation above that he does not think a sign barring or conditioning entry should operate to do so unless confronted and asked to leave, but a physical barrier, even a symbolic one, he thinks does. He has made no indication that the placement or size of the sign is key, so I ask him how we are to judge a velvet rope vs. a big sign on the door.

  • robc||

    Except I dont think a sign is necessary at all. Entering without a ticket is a trespass, as there is an expectation that a theatre requires a ticket.

    Some sort of barrier, like a ticket booth or a ticket collector or etc, however, does probably "need" to exist or the potential trespasser might have a good argument that they didnt know.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, how you can argue with a straight face that an implied expectation deserves recognition, but an express written declaration does not or less, is beyond me.

  • robc||

    Because I dont think theatre talkers should be arrested. Just ejected.

    It seems pretty straight forward to me, not just how you are confused.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think they, and those who carry on someone's property in contravention of the owner's wishes should be ejected, not arrested.

    Again, that is about the appropriate response to the violation of a land or business owner's property rights, not whether a violation has occurred.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Not all violations of a person's property rights are a trespass.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Property rights:

    A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used[...] the exclusive right to the services of the resource[...] the right to delegate, rent, or sell any portion of the rights by exchange or gift at whatever price the owner determines (provided someone is willing to pay that price).

    My privately carrying a firearm on your property without your knowledge and without damage to the property in question does no damage to any of those rights. As robc points out, standard set theory definitions do not apply to property rights.

    Certainly, were you to notice my firearm and ask me to leave I would be in violation of your property rights (specifically, right to determine use of a service) were I to refuse your request on your grounds. Otherwise, IMO the movie theater example applies.

    At any rate, I don't see strict ideological construction of property rights as either useful or necessary to classical liberalism. Common law exceptions to property rights such as easements have long been part of our system to little detriment and much good.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    -My privately carrying a firearm on your property without your knowledge and without damage to the property in question does no damage to any of those rights.

    Are you arguing that the right to set terms of entry onto land is not a right of a landowner?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That is correct. The right to remove a person from one's land for any reason, and the right to redress for any damages are the relevant property rights.

    As previously stated, even those rights are subject to common use restrictions such as easements.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So unattended land, even land so posted, is simply a free-for-all?

    Possibly the longest recognized property right is the right to control of the property, and that includes control over entry onto the land. You are confusing the remedy (right to remove) with the property right (control of entry).

    Let us say you own beachfront property. You are tired of people cutting through your property to the beach, so you erect a sign: no cutting through this property! According to you this sign has no legal (or moral?) meaning, the only right the property owner has is 1. to sue for damages done to the property by entry and 2. to confront and remove the one who enters. That is not what our law says and has said, nor is what I would think of as a libertarian position.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    At common law and today in the US:

    -Trespass to land is a common law tort that is committed when an individual or the object of an individual intentionally (or in Australia negligently) enters the land of another without a lawful excuse. Trespass to land is actionable per se. Thus, the party whose land is entered upon may sue even if no actual harm is done.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Fine. Leave it at that. The property owner must take action, or else trespassing didn't happen.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You are confusing remedy with rights.

    If someone frauds you and you decide not to take action that does not mean that fraud has not occurred.

  • robc||

    Here is what I find (bolding mine):

    entering another person's property without permission of the owner or his/her agent and without lawful authority (like that given to a health inspector) and causing any damage, no matter how slight. Any interference with the owner's (or a legal tenant's) use of the property is a sufficient showing of damage and is a civil wrong (tort) sufficient to form the basis for a lawsuit against the trespasser by the owner or a tenant using the property.

    Concealed carry doesnt meet that standard. There is no damage, even slight, and no interference with the owner's use of the property. Lack of knowledge proves the lack of interference, in fact.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That information is flat incorrect. Trespass to land is actionable per se. There need be no need for damage for an action for trespass to land to apply.

    -Every unlawful entry onto another's property is trespass, even if no harm is done to the property.

    -Injury to the property is not necessary for the defendant to be guilty of trespass, although the amount of damages awarded will generally reflect the extent of the harm done to the property. For example, a person could sue birdwatchers who intruded onto his land but would probably receive only nominal damages.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefre.....ss+to+land

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I'm not sure how in line it is with common law for governments to delegate non-travel uses to street right of ways, even parking. I think street fronting businesses should have overriding powers over any non-travel uses of right of ways in front of their property, since legally, it tends to be their property.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Let us say you own beachfront property. You are tired of people cutting through your property to the beach, so you erect a sign: no cutting through this property!

    Except the movie theater is openly inviting people to enter, for a fee. In that situation, the issue is harm, not persnickety rule-making.

    As for your beach example, consider the the property owner who sys, "I'm tired of people wandering all over the place, and peeking through the fence at my wife and daughter, and dropping their Baby Ruth wrappers on the ground. I recognize the desire of those not fortunate enough to own beachfront property to access the portion of the beach designated as 'public'. You may use this path along the edge of the property, if you stay strictly on it, and do not litter."

    People who leave the path to ogle the daughter, or drop their beer cans on the ground are breaking the rules, and are properly subject to being ejected. Somebody who leaves the path to pick up a piece of trash (either their own, or someone else's) may "technically" be violating the rules, but has caused no discernible harm, and has actually done the owner a favor.

    If you have a sign in your theater which says, "Shooting the other patrons is strictly verboten!" and somebody violates the rule, THAT is harm. Sitting quietly in a seat, munching popcorn and watching stuff blow up, while armed, is not harm.

    But you're one of those Precautionary Principle Libertarians, so I'm wasting my time.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So your view of rights is completely harm based, a utilitarian view. Interesting.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    It is not utilitarian, it is practical. How can you be sure you have been harmed or trespassed against if you do not take the efforts necessary to be aware of the trespass, and discover no evidence of anything having happened? Property rights go both ways. If you don't actively protect them, you don't really have them.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    If a property owner who invites customers onto his property for a fee can argbitrarily deny access to peaceful armed citizens, why not NIGGERS NOT WELCOME HERE?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    As a libertarian I oppose laws that would force him to allow anyone on his property.

  • parkerbce586||

    my neighbor's mother makes 63 BUCKS every hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for 7 months but last month her pay check was 15302 BUCKSjust working on the laptop for a few hours. Learn More Here
    ===========================
    http://www.fb49.com
    ===========================

  • RishJoMo||

    Frammy So so said there is no way man!

    www.Anon-VPN.com

  • janiferavc088||

    my classmate's aunt makes 85/hour Dollars on the laptop. She has been laid off for 6 months but last month her pay was 18264 Dollars just working on the laptop for a few hours. go now
    =====================
    http://www.Fb49.com
    =====================

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement