Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
When Lemonade Is Illegal...
In the comments section of the post about CAFTA below, reader "Randolph Carter" points to this incredible story from Salem, Massachusetts, which is haunted more by stupid licensing laws than witches these days:
Dominic Serino, 9, and his neighbor, Ryan Decker, 11, were forced Saturday to shut down their lemonade stand at Salem Common after an employee of a nearby sausage vendor called police, complaining that the boys were hurting his sales.
The budding entrepreneurs had to call it quits, under orders by some reluctant police officers. The boys, after all, did not have a license, and rules are rules. The two packed up and trudged home.
Whole thing here.
All together now: "My country 'tis of thee..."
|8.3.05 @ 11:39AM|#
Well, it's obvious that we have to close the "Lemonade Stand
Loophole," where unlicensed vendors can sell lemonade and other
drinks to the public.
And from http://www.overlawyered.com/archives/00aug2.html
(in 2000):
August 16-17 -- Okay to make lemonade. In Eustis, Fla., the city government has backed down from an inspector's attempt to close down the lemonade stand that nine-year-old Rachel Caine runs across the street from her home. (Stephanie Erickson, "Eustis officials back down from order to make girl, 9, close lemonade stand", Orlando Sentinel/Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, Aug. 9). And in Longmont, Colo., 11-year-old "Soda Girl" Caitlin Rezac is back in business with her fizzy-refreshment stand after a run-in with the Boulder County health department, which had busted her for operating without a hand sink and $110 license; a local business donated the sink (search Denver Post archives on "Caitlin Rezac" (excerpts free, fee for full story); letter to the editor from county official Ann Walters, Boulder Daily Camera, Aug. 12 (scroll) (via Liberzine)).
Phil|8.3.05 @ 11:49AM|#
It's officially a trend!
t was a University Heights tradition: Every year on John Carroll's graduation day, neighborhood kids set up lemonade stands around the school for visiting parents.
Obviously, this was bad. It had to be stopped.
This year, Pat Rhoa's sons, ages 9 and 11, were engaged in junior commerce when they were approached by John Carroll's chief of police, Dan Clark. He told the boys they were in direct competition with the university's concession stand, and if they wanted to sell on school property, they needed permission.
"We had our own contracted food service people . . .," Clark says. "I explained to the father that you're taking business away from them."
Besides, as a good Catholic school, the Pope's teachings on crushing the aspirations of children are very clear.
Rhoa asked the chief whether his boys could at least sell their five remaining cups of lemonade, to which the officer responded with a definitive "no." Rhoa says Clark then stood over the boys, arms folded, as they dumped the offending cups in the grass. "Don't worry," Rhoa told the officer. "We're leaving."
But the chief didn't budge. "We gotta make sure you leave," he said, then escorted the trio off campus.
One can never be too firm with traffickers in illegal lemonade.
Fortunately, the Rhoa boys learned valuable lessons about commerce and power. "They learned how to be nice to people, a little bit about change and money," says Dad. "But they also learned that you can't get away from The Man. Big Brother is always there."
The greatest irony: The boys were trying to raise money to attend a John Carroll sports camp.
|8.3.05 @ 11:53AM|#
The article only goes this deep into the sausage-vendor's
side:
"''I didn't tell the police, 'Listen, throw these kids out of
here,' " Clowery said. ''I am superapologetic. I just didn't want
them to be within direct line of sight. It's a tourist area. We
spend big money for the spot.""
So, in the interest of playing devil's advocate: is the big money
for a license, or for a lease? I presume in Massachusetts "{Town}
Common" is in fact a munincipal park. In that case, what follows is
less significant. But...
If it is in fact a lease, and it grants the sausage cart an
exclusive right to retail in that area, then isn't this a case of
cute ragamuffins trampling their neighbor's paid-for property
rights?
|8.3.05 @ 11:55AM|#
We have a bazillion cops in this country now, thanks to the war on drugs. Why are poeple surprised when they are used in any way at all that makes them seem useful?
|8.3.05 @ 12:09PM|#
So lemme get this straight - the vendor wanted them removed from
any line-of-sight to his cart, but didn't want them thrown out of
the area?
Suuure.
|8.3.05 @ 12:17PM|#
devil's-advocate,
You are correct in the sense that, as good libertarians, we should
be happy that property rights are upheld by the use of law.
However, let's move away from the theoretical to the real world for
a second. This vendor's competition are a couple of kids. They're
not even teenagers yet. I don't know about you, but whenever I see
kids like this, I make a point of buying from them as a way to
reinforce and validate their budding entreprenurial identities.
However, I hardly ever drink the crap they're selling; I go around
the corner and throw the shit away. After all, they're kids! God
knows how many times they sneezed (on purpose or not) in the damn
drink. If I am really hungry or thirsty, I'll buy frmo the
"professional." I would imagine that the level of competition
involved here is minute, and that what we here as libertarians
should concern ourselves with in the obvious overreaction by our
law enforcement officials.
|8.3.05 @ 12:23PM|#
The sausage guy paid for legal rights, whether license or lease.
Normally, libertarians would be all for the protection of rights
for a business. But somehow, even here, there's a soft spot for
"the children". As if being 11 makes one expempt from the abiding
by the rules of the game. Perhaps the economics of the sausage-guy
business are similar to other seasonal and tourist shops. He might
need the extra lemonade sales to cover the cost of slack times,
like summer break, so he arranges for a exclusive rights. For all
we know, those little "entrepreneurs" were stealing bread from
sausage guy's family.
Friends of selective enforcement might ask the police to look the
other way when the offending 11-year old is "only" selling
lemonade. Would they be so quick to grant the exemption when that
kid is pulling out their landscaping or smashing the windows on
their car? If you're gonna have a law, it has to apply to
everyone.
Maybe it isn't the kids who need helmets.
the regulator|8.3.05 @ 12:23PM|#
When lemonade is illegal...
...only criminals will have their thirst quenched.
|8.3.05 @ 12:28PM|#
Swede: I like your sense of charity, but there's a gap in your
reasoning.
let's move away from the theoretical to the real
world
I would imagine that the level of competition involved here is
minute
Must we make sausage guy sue the kids to demonstrate the level of
harm they do to his business? Would you also have no objection if a
Starbucks trailer pulled up and started selling drinks? At what
level of harm do we actually decide to enforce the contract?
The Wine Commonsewer|8.3.05 @ 12:31PM|#
Not the first time that's happened. But, when Mrs TWC had a lemonade stand it made the six o'clock news in LA. Good human interest. No bureacratic drones showed up either.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.3.05 @ 12:40PM|#
WTF? I am absolutely amazed to see the defense of licensing on a
libertarian BB.
The real question should be why Sausage Guy or the Lemonade Boys
should have to buy a friggin' license to sell stuff.
|8.3.05 @ 12:41PM|#
Normally, libertarians would be all for the protection of
rights for a business. But somehow, even here, there's a soft spot
for "the children".
There was a right way to handle this and a wrong way. Right way:
"Kid, you'll do better if you move to a spot with less competition.
And technically you aren't supposed to be here since somebody else
is paying to use this spot. So if you just move over there you'll
have customers and no competition and everything will be
better."
Wrong way: "I'm going to have to ask you to cease and desist from
any and all lemonade-related activity until you get a permit.
Otherwise the cops will have no choice but to close you down
forcibly."
It's not about a "soft spot" for "the children". It's about adults
using common sense so that kids can engage in time-honored
childhood activities.
|8.3.05 @ 12:41PM|#
I don't see why libertarians should be on the side of the sausage guy. Just because he paid for a government license that grants him and him only the exclusive right to sell in that area doesn't make such government controled licenses right. Private land is obviously another story.
Phil|8.3.05 @ 12:46PM|#
I think you're missing the forest for the trees, Dynamist: Why do vendors have to purchase a $2,000 license from the state to be permitted to sell lemonade or sausage?
|8.3.05 @ 12:47PM|#
And now libertarians are defending government-enforced monopolies. And harrassing kids.
|8.3.05 @ 12:49PM|#
You know, if I see one more media-savvy parent setting up their
precious Johnnie for a David/Goliath story I'm gonna puke. Look at
those little bastards. A Radio Flyer in the background?
Gimme a fucking break. Hey, where's the backward "E" in "lemonade"?
The crossed out 25 cent price?
This happens a couple times a year. It happens when (a) some
asshole parent builds their kid a lemonade stand for the SOLE
PURPOSE of (b) getting it shut down, so they can then (c) go
running to the paper, the TV, the Fox evening news, and every book
publisher that'll listen with their tale of woe, of how little
Johnny got his lemonade stand shut down when all he wanted to do
was make a few nickels for himself so he could save up enough money
to join the Mickey Mouse club and look what happened. Waa waa
waaa.
Its a sick spectacle, to be sure, using kids this way, but this is
what some parents have become.
|8.3.05 @ 12:51PM|#
Dynamist, if you think libertarians support business "rights" which are derived from arbitrary government regulation, I think you don't have a very good understanding of libertarianism or rights.
|8.3.05 @ 1:06PM|#
The law's the law. Laws are meant to protect us. These kids have no more right to break the law then you or I do. If a law keeps us all safe it is inherintly a good thing, it wouldn't have been enacted otherwise, I'm all for throwing the book at them.
|8.3.05 @ 1:11PM|#
thoreau: You're correct about the technique.
Everybody else: The idea of licensing need not derive from
government. Substitute something like Underwriter's Laboratorties
or the Good Houskeeping Seal in place of the license. I agree that
paying the state sucks, but there are extra costs to running a
"professional" business (so that Swede would feel comfortable
drinking the juice). In our current nanny-state model, that UL
label for food vendors takes the form of a municpal license. If you
don't like licensing, bitch about that, rather than ask for
selective enforcement of silly law.
if you think libertarians support business "rights" which are
derived from arbitrary government regulation
Most libertarians love property rights which are
part of land titles. Where do land titles come from? The arbritrary
decision of an old English King. If you look deeper into the
history of titles, you'll find this fundamental aspect of
libertarianism is founded upon blatantly arbitrary and illegal (by
common law) taking of land by force.
Jeff|8.3.05 @ 1:18PM|#
I haven't seen a lemonade stand in years.
What about Lucy's Psychiatry stand from Peanuts? How I wish the
feds would shut that down.
|8.3.05 @ 1:24PM|#
Excuse me, folks, this was ON THE TOWN COMMON. The town
shouldn't have any system to decide who, or how many, people and
businesses are allowed to set up on the Town Common.
Freaking ignorant, reflexive snarking, is what...
|8.3.05 @ 1:27PM|#
What's theft?
Taking something without consent or compensation.
Land titles are theft. All other property is beautiful. Keep what
you make, but don't claim rights to what you didn't make.
|8.3.05 @ 1:34PM|#
Dynamist, I would have to disagree, for somewhat Hobbesian
reasons.
It is impossible for any human economic activity at all to take
place without some means of determining who has access to a
particular piece of property. Even so-called propertyless
theoretical systems still have a means to grant exclusive access to
a piece of property for a particular user, if only to avoid having
me come along and plow up the crops Collective Farm #1 just planted
so that I can have a nice open-air latrine.
Since some sort of exclusive land use access is inevitable, we have
two choices. We can either 1) have a war of all against all to
attempt to determine who should have which piece of land, or 2) we
can "negotiate" our way into a system of peaceful management of
land claims by affirming existing ownership and initiating a system
of honest exchange. Some centuries ago we decided to do #2.
Disputing all existing land claims because of the fact that at the
jumping-off point land distribution was not perfectly fair
accomplishes little but returning us to #1.
|8.3.05 @ 1:35PM|#
Does anyone really want to walk through a public area and be
harassed by guys selling "rolexes" from inside their overcoats, or
knockoff football jerseys, or pirated dvds, every 5 feet? Vendor's
licensing is a reasonable solution to prevent this, as well as
leasing the right to sell in a public space. It's too bad these
kids have idiot parents who don't think that the law applies to
them, but that doesn't make the sausage vendor, the police, or the
system the city has to license vendors, at fault.
p.s. - thank you for coming joe, you're exactly right (with the
sarcasm).
|8.3.05 @ 1:42PM|#
Does anyone really want to walk through a public area and be
harassed by guys selling "rolexes" from inside their overcoats, or
knockoff football jerseys, or pirated dvds, every 5 feet?
Hell, yes! One of the best watches I ever owned was a knockoff
Gucci with changeable color backgrounds, for which I paid a DC
street vendor ten bucks. It kept perfect time for three years; too
bad I lost it when I moved to Connecticut.
|8.3.05 @ 1:46PM|#
Where else am I supposed to buy my Rolexes? I've got to go to Canal Street every time I want me some bling?
|8.3.05 @ 1:47PM|#
Wow. That was more successful than I had hoped.
:)
Kirsten, my private property is defined by a deed, issued by my
county, which at root originates from some arbitrary government
decision. Show me anywhere where that isn't the case.
To be sure, my goal wasn't to support government licensing, but it
was to make sure we're not being blinded by "for the children"
cuteness where the sausage vendor is legitimately impacted by other
operators within a regulated space. Is the point that there
shouldn't be any public spaces where this kind of ambiguity pops
up? Sure, I can get behind that.
But this is a more ambiguous situation than the time in 2003 when
Minnesota shut down lemonade kids *on their own lawn* in the
neighborhood of the state fair.
Thoreau had it right - explain to the kids that they're hurting the
sausage vendor who has in fact played by the rules to be where they
are; if they don't think to move out of the way themselves, then
suggest a better location.
Of course, this is itself an argument for more discretion for
police officers, which I think we like when police make the right
decision, and decry when they make they wrong decision.
|8.3.05 @ 1:51PM|#
FluffyUnbound: I was only making half the case. Once people
accept that the current system of titling is bogus (a tough slog),
then they'll be more open to looking at negotiated alternatives.
From my limited experience, if I start with the negotiated
alternative, I bump against a lot of closed minds who don't want to
change an unjust system that has served many (but still a minority)
quite well for centuries.
The other half is to recognize that all land is justly the property
of the public-at-large, and in exchange for using a bit of land for
your latrine or wheat field or office tower, you owe the public
some rent on the ground you occupy. To make a long post short, I
ask all to look into the ideas of Henry George.
|8.3.05 @ 1:58PM|#
Jennifer, Stephen,
The guys selling watches either a) have a license to set up a table
on the sidewalk, which are limited in number and enforced by the
city or b) acting illegally, which keeps the numbers down and the
vendors discreet.
Either, way the law is keeping the sidewalk from falling victim to
the tragedy of the commons.
|8.3.05 @ 2:10PM|#
advocate: Some years ago I made an offer of exchange to your
employer. I haven't received any reply. Would you please ask him if
he's still interested in obtaining more souls?
(Provided, of course, that I own my own soul. I didn't make it
myself, so I might not have a right to trade; I might be stuck with
it.)
|8.3.05 @ 2:34PM|#
She said the parents were using the stand to help teach the
boys the basics of running a business, but the lemonade controversy
created a real-life civics lesson for them, too.
Lesson learned: entrepeneurship is hell. If it seems easy, don't
worry: the government will make it difficult for you.
Swede, lol! I patronize lemonade stands, too. You make a good
point, though. Next time I'll throw the swill out when I drive
away.
The law's the law. Laws are meant to protect us. These kids
have no more right to break the law then you or I do. If a law
keeps us all safe it is inherintly a good thing, it wouldn't have
been enacted otherwise, I'm all for throwing the book at
them.
Has anyone noticed that Jane is Juanita reincarnated and honkified?
(my own term).
Ron Hardin,
You're a fan of Homestar
Runner , too?
Phil,
I'm awfully pensive to say this, but I have a closer affiliation
with John Carroll than I would be comfortable to admit here.
|8.3.05 @ 2:35PM|#
Sausage Guy and the Lemonade Boys....I think I've seen them live in concert before.
|8.3.05 @ 2:40PM|#
THE KNIGHTS
(A monologue from the play by Aristophanes)
(NOTE: This monologue is reprinted from Aristophanes: The Eleven
Comedies. Trans. Anonymous. London: The Athenian Society,
1922.)
SAUSAGE-SELLER: The story is worth hearing. Listen! From here I
rushed straight to the Senate, right in the track of this man; he
was already letting loose the storm, unchaining the lightning,
crushing the Knights beneath huge mountains of calumnies heaped
together and having all the air of truth; he called you
conspirators and his lies caught root like weeds in every mind;
dark were the looks on every side and brows were knitted. When I
saw that the Senate listened to him favourably and was being
tricked by his imposture I said to myself, "Come, gods of rascals
and braggarts, gods of all fools, toad-eaters and braggarts and
thou, market-place, where I was bred from my earliest days, give me
unbridled audacity, an untiring chatter and a shameless voice." No
sooner had I ended this prayer than a lewd man broke wind on my
right. "Hah! 'tis a good omen," said I, and prostrated myself; then
I burst open the door by a vigorous push with my back, and, opening
my mouth to the utmost, shouted, "Senators, I wanted you to be the
first to hear the good news; since the War broke out, I have never
seen anchovies at a lower price!" All faces brightened at once and
I was voted a chaplet for my good tidings; and I added, "With a
couple of words I will reveal to you, how you can have quantities
of anchovies for an obol; 'tis to seize on all the dishes the
merchants have." With mouths gaping with admiration, they applauded
me. However, the Paphlagonian winded the matter and, well knowing
the sort of language which pleases the Senate best, said, "Friends,
I am resolved to offer one hundred oxen to the goddess in
recognition of this happy event." The Senat at once veered to his
side. So when I saw myself defeated by this ox filth, I outbade the
fellow, crying, "Two hundred!" And beyond this I moved, that a vow
be made to Diana of a thousand goats if the next day anchovies
should only be worth an obol a hundred. And the Senate looked
towards me again. The other, stunned with the blow, grew delirious
in his speech, and at last the Prytanes and the guards dragged him
out. The Senators then stood talking noisily about the anchovies.
Cleon, however, begged them to listen to the Laced�monian envoy,
who had come to make proposals of peace; but all with one accord,
cried, "'Tis certainly not the moment to think of peace now! If
anchovies are so cheap, what need have we of peace? Let the war
take its course!" And with loud shouts they demanded that the
Prytanes should close the sitting and then leapt over the rails in
all directions. As for me, I slipped away to buy all the coriander
seed and leeks there were on the market and gave it to them gratis
as seasoning for their anchovies. 'Twas marvellous! They loaded me
with praises and caresses; thus I conquered the Senate with an
obol's worth of leeks, and here I am.
Kirsten|8.3.05 @ 2:50PM|#
Kirsten, my private property is defined by a deed, issued by
my county, which at root originates from some arbitrary government
decision. Show me anywhere where that isn't the case.
I'm typing on it right now. I don't have a deed to my computer
issued by any government, nor does any government hold records
saying that I own the clothes on my body nor the purse that I carry
nor the majority of the other things I own. Property rights do not
derive from government deeds.
But consider the consequences of that line of reasoning. Are you
suggesting that if the government records defining your private
property were destroyed in some bizarre catastrophe that it would
be okay for me to show up with a bulldozer and knock down your
house since it was no longer your property?
Phil|8.3.05 @ 2:54PM|#
smacky --
I have nothing against JCU myself; I had just happened to read that
bit in Scene last month and it was the first thing I
thought of. Me, I've only ever been on the campus . . . maybe three
times? And not at all since like 1996.
|8.3.05 @ 3:12PM|#
SAUSAGE-SELLER: Just tell me how a sausage-seller can become a
great man.
DEMOSTHENES: That is precisely why you will be great, because you
are a sad rascal without shame, no better than a common market
rogue.
SAUSAGE-SELLER: I do not hold myself worthy of wielding
power.
DEMOSTHENES: Oh! by the gods! Why do you not hold yourself worthy?
Have you then such a good opinion of yourself? Come, are you of
honest parentage?
SAUSAGE-SELLER: By the gods! No! of very bad indeed.
DEMOSTHENES: Spoilt child of fortune, everything fits together to
ensure your greatness.
SAUSAGE-SELLER: But I have not had the least education. I can only
read, and that very badly.
DEMOSTHENES: That is what may stand in your way, almost knowing how
to read. A demagogue must be neither an educated nor an honest man;
he has to be an ignoramus and a rogue.
(...)
CHORUS: Demos, you are our all-powerful sovereign lord; all tremble
before you, yet you are led by the nose. You love to be flattered
and fooled; you listen to the orators with gaping mouth and your
mind is led astray.
DEMOS: It's rather you who have no brains, if you think me so
foolish as all that; it is with a purpose that I play this idiot's
role, for I love to drink the livelong day, and so it pleases me to
keep a thief for my minister. When he has thoroughly gorged
himself, then I overthrow and crush him.
CHORUS: What profound wisdom! If it be really so, why! all is for
the best. Your ministers, then, are your victims, whom you nourish
and feed up expressly in the Pnyx, so that, the day your dinner is
ready, you may immolate the fattest and eat him.
DEMOS: Look, see how I play with them, while all the time they
think themselves such adepts at cheating me. I have my eye on them
when they thieve, but I do not appear to be seeing them; then I
thrust a judgment down their throat as it were a feather, and force
them to vomit up all they have robbed from me.
Johno|8.3.05 @ 3:46PM|#
The Boston Glob now tells me that the
Boys are back in business. You see, the mayor of my fair town
of Salem, The Hon. Stanley Usovicz, felt that a waiver of permit
for the kids and their little lemon cart would be too much trouble,
so he is allowing the lemonade selling tykes (who have been there
for weeks and who are adorable) to operate jointly with
the sausage cart under the sausage cart's license. The sausage cart
vendor, for his part, feels like a real jagoff for ratting the kids
out in the first place, and numerous passersby have told him so as
well. So, the kids get a piece of his permit.
'Cos that makes sense. That they need a permit. Can't vote, can't
drive, can't pop a cold one, need a permit. To sell Country Time
lemonade at insane markups.
I love living in Salem, so much to see, so much to do, skee-ball
and ice cream all summer long, but man. It sure is Massachusettsy
around here.
|8.3.05 @ 4:00PM|#
Kirsten: You miss the distinction between personal property and
real property. Who owns than land upon which you park your
stuff?
If the records of title are lost or destroyed, I could claim the
land and bulldoze your house. Why do you think your claim to land
is any stronger than mine?
(Such a tragedy is one of the reasons title insurance is mandatory
for mortgages, and wise for everybody.)
|8.3.05 @ 4:20PM|#
The Hon. Stanley Usovicz, felt that a waiver of permit for
the kids and their little lemon cart would be too much trouble, so
he is allowing the lemonade selling tykes (who have been there for
weeks and who are adorable) to operate jointly with the sausage
cart under the sausage cart's license.
Yeah, buddy, you tell that turd who's boss!
|8.3.05 @ 4:22PM|#
The other half is to recognize that all land is justly the
property of the public-at-large, and in exchange for using a bit of
land for your latrine or wheat field or office tower, you owe the
public some rent on the ground you occupy.
Didn't they try that once somewhere. Russia, maybe? Cuber? North
Korea? How's that whole communism thing working out, anyhow?
Ye godz, to think someone with the handle of Dynamist is proposing
the abolition of property rights in real estate, to be replaced
with a tax. Apologies to joe, but that may be the worst single idea
I've ever read here at H & R.
Real property is picture-perfect arbitrariness. After all, the
definition of your real property, its boundaries, could hardly be
more arbitrary - imaginary lines drawn in space. The root of all
real property, as far as I know, goes back to a grant from the
government itself.
Real property is basically a bundle of arbitrary state-granted
monopoly rights. Too bad it beats the hell out of every alternative
tried so far. Especially communal ownership.
|8.3.05 @ 5:20PM|#
RC: You illustrate the closed-mindedness I face. Please check
the link I gave. The essential bit is not who actually holds the
title, but recognizing that no individual has just claim to a
perpetual occupation of piece of the earth. Versions of the system
seem to have served Hong Kong and Singapore quite well. The commies
that took over Namibia
are discovering "the market" and other liberty-friendly adjustments
to the colonial system. Ask a renter how well the King's rights are
serving him. Free your mind, my friend.
By eliminating a deeply-ingrained distortion in value, Georgism (or
geolibertarianism), is a much more "dynamic" system than continuing
the monoply our Founding Fathers brought over from England to
enrich themselves. No argument that it has worked well enough, and
I'm a screwer more than a screwee, but I can see how it isn't fair.
As a dynamist, I'm not one to argue for a desired outcome (that's
for joe). I look for ways to eliminate distortions so we have
better information and make better choices.
Joe Martin|8.3.05 @ 5:56PM|#
A big raspberry goes out to the vendor who called the police on
these two boys. Jarrod Clowery attempted to defend his actions: "I
didn't tell the police, "Listen, throw these kids out of here". I
am superapologetic. I just didn't want them to be within direct
line of sight. It's a tourist area. We spend big money for the
spot." I'm guessing he spends somewhere in the vicinity of $2000
for the spot. Possibly Clowery has a point. He did indeed buy a
license enabling him to sell food and drinks in a heavily
trafficked area. I could argue that he had a property right to the
vending concessions in that area. By calling the police, he was
simply protecting his legitimate property.
But I think he was too quick to depend on the government to protect
him. Apparently the boys were doing enough business to threaten his
revenue for the day. But that was an opportunity to earn higher
profits. How? Simple. Allow the boys to act as vendors for his own
lemonade. Offer to split the profits with them and benefit from
their superior salesmanship. Clowery had a golden opportunity to
teach the boys about property rights, business partnerships, and
competitive advantage. He would have also avoided the ill will of
the entire community of Salem, Massachusetts. Sounds like an
opportunity for a win-win situation. Except that he chickened out
and leaned on the government for help. Oops. Sounds like a
lose-lose situation resulted.
(This is what I
posted at my blog after seeing the original story. From what
I'm reading in the comments, it appears that the city may have
enforced this solution already. It would have been better had the
original parties reached this solution themselves, however.)
|8.3.05 @ 6:05PM|#
Joe: I love your win-win solution. Without government to rely on, I think such ideas might occur more often.
|8.3.05 @ 6:22PM|#
Joe, the problem with your solution is that Clowery probably would have been arrested for violating the child-labor laws.
Joe Martin|8.3.05 @ 6:24PM|#
Jennifer, I agree that child-labor laws could potentially pose a problem. However, do they cover situtations like business partnerships in addition to straightforward employment? What if Clowery had worked out an arrangement with the kids' parents?
|8.3.05 @ 7:04PM|#
Dynamist: You have things completely bass-ackwards. Property
does not come from titles, and neither is the invention of an old
English king. Read Genesis 23:
'Then Abraham rose from beside his dead wife and spoke to the Hittites. He said, "I am an alien and a stranger among you. Sell me some property for a burial site here so I can bury my dead." ... So Ephron's field in Machpelah near Mamre - both the field and the cave in it, and all the trees within the borders of the field - was deeded to Abraham as his property...'
That's a little older than England, don't you think? Ownership of
private property has been recognized in a great many societies,
very few of which used pieces of paper in the county office to
record it. Formal title arose because it's an effective means of
proving ownership to strangers; "primitive" societies don't have
much use for it because land transactions don't occur between
strangers much. Really, you are so wrong about nearly everything
you write about property that I can hardly think that you're not
just trolling. I would suggest that for a start you read Hernando
de Soto's The Mystery of Capital and Richard Pipes'
Property and Freedom.
|8.3.05 @ 7:19PM|#
JD: I'll skip arguing over biblical interpretion, and ask that
you read Progress and Poverty by George. I'll read Pipes.
When would you like to meet and discuss?
The idea of "proving ownership" implies that ownership is justly
recognized. In the conquest of North America, the King's workmen
first had to "educate" natives about the "ownership" of god's earth
before they could cheat the heathens out of their ancestral
non-titled land.
|8.3.05 @ 7:28PM|#
From the blurbs on amazon about Pipes, it looks like he misses the discinction between real property and all other property. I'll also guess that he misses the possibility of different separations between real-property rights and real-property ownership. An emphyteutic lease grants liberty-enhancing rights to the lessee while ownership and ultimate benefit of the ground is held by the lessor.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.4.05 @ 12:56AM|#
Jane, you ignorant slut. :-)
Actually, I didn't say that, it was the guy who founded House of
Blues
The Wine Commonsewer|8.4.05 @ 1:00AM|#
Kirsten, good points.
And the property right isn't defined by the deed it is EVIDENCED by
the deed. We have asked the county to keep records of property
transactions as a convenience to us.
The government is not granting you the deed to your property the
SELLER is granting you the deed, which you then record with the
county.
|8.4.05 @ 9:59AM|#
Can't the sausage guy just use "I'm a licensed business" as a
value-add selling point to potential customers? Or do most
potential customers not see any value in that?
The sausage guy paid a license fee for one reason: to restrict
competition.
|8.4.05 @ 10:35AM|#
I happen to know a great deal about land titles and ownership,
and I sayeth:
It's really hard!
|8.4.05 @ 1:28PM|#
TWC: Who granted the seller that deed? Regress until you reach
an arbitrary decree of the King of England/France/Spain.
The county also enforces the rights evidenced by the deed, granted
under common and codified law. Without the Sheriff, your deed means
much less. It seems a reasonable shorthand to say the deed comes
with rights which derive from the arbitrary power of the King.
Kirsten|8.5.05 @ 11:19AM|#
If the records of title are lost or destroyed, I could claim
the land and bulldoze your house. Why do you think your claim to
land is any stronger than mine?
Whether or not the records of title are lost or destroyed, you
could claim the land and bulldoze the house. Either way it would be
theft, and you'd have one pissed off property-owner to deal with.
There is nothing magical about government which makes property what
it is.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245