Lemonade-Stand Crackdown Continues: Cops Make Girls Cry From Georgia to Wisconsin

From the Associated Press:

Police in Georgia have shut down a lemonade stand run by three girls trying to save up for a trip to a water park, saying they didn't have a business license or the required permits.

Midway Police Chief Kelly Morningstar says police also didn't know how the lemonade was made, who made it or what was in it. [...]

The girls needed a business license, peddler's permit and food permit to operate, even on residential property. The permits cost $50 a day or $180 per year. [...]

The girls are now doing chores and yard work to make money.

Surely an isolated incident of over-zealous regulation and enforcement, right? Tell it to Appleton, Wisconsin!

Two young girls sell lemonade and cookies every year near their house during Appleton's Old Car Show. But this year that changed.

"We had a knock on the door from our local police officer who had to deliver us the news," said Mann.

Because of a new city ordinance, Margi Mann's daughter Lydia could no longer sell her lemonade. And their neighbor couldn't sell her cookies.

"There were tears at first. There was big disappointment. When you're nine and somebody tells you you can't, you're not happy," said Mann. "It's just a lemonade stand, so that's the part that's disheartening."

"I'm sad that we probably won't be able to do it anymore," said Lydia Coenen, Mann's daughter.

On June 1, the Appleton city council passed an ordinance preventing vendors from selling products within a two-block radius of local events. That includes Lydia's lemonade stand. She lives just one block from the car show, held at Pierce Park every July. Mann says the officer tried to see if the department could make an exception, but was told they had to follow the ordinance.

"Since I had 20-some-odd jars of lemonade in my refrigerator, we made the decision along with our neighbors whose daughter is selling the cookies, that we would just give them away free today," said Mann.

You will love this quote from local Alderman Peter Stueck:

"It's certainly not that Appleton is against little girls setting up their cookie and lemonade stands. But the overall intent of the ordinance was to protect the vendors at these events," said Stueck. "To get a little bit of security to the vendors who were at the events."

Actually , Appleton is against little girls setting up their cookie and lemonade stands, as evidenced by the fact that the city made it illegal and then the cops enforced the law.

Thanks to Ray Eckhart for the Georgia link. The Reason archive, sadly, is jam-packed with lemonade-stand crackdowns. Here's a recent Reason.tv vid on the subject:

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.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    It's all for the greater good people, can't you understand that?

  • Again||

    RELEASE THE BALKOBOTS!

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Is cracking-down on these lemonade stands a turn-on for these cops?

  • Officer Microphallus||

    You have no idea...

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Can I get you a poster of Hope Solo?

  • herve villachaize||

    They took down the stand, guns drawn, yelling: "Stop resisting, stop resisting"... They shot at one girl, thinking she was going for a weapon, but missed, thanks to their incompetence... fortunately, it was only a teletubby doll...

  • House of Gryphon||

    This is so retarded. Why else would the police be picking on little kids? What is our society coming to...

  • Almanian||

    And then we wonder why kids today don't understand basic economics.

    Well, no, we really don't. We understand perfectly well. This is why instruction at home is vital!

    Back to eating Grandma's steak and ruining everyone's lives...

  • Cops||

    Look, all you need is a fucking business license. What's so fucking hard about that?!

  • Reason Hit & Run||

    said the cop, gun pointing at the girl's head, the stench of murdered dog in the air.

  • ||

    Why does a 9 year old need a fucking business license to sell fucking lemonade at 50 cents a pop? Greedy fucking government bastards. You and the aldermen that voted for this are fucking stupid. A law should be passed exempting children under 12 with a lemonade and cookie stand from needing a license. Either that or make the license free for children. What's so hard about that you fucking greedy bastard!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Well, they certainly can't have these little kids taking their own initiative to start their own business. How else are these government officials going to make them completely dependent on The State as they age?

    These incidents are perfect examples of how as a government matures, it inevitably becomes more corrupt and self-serving.

  • herve villachaize||

    "Little girl, get used to that feeling... the boot of the Man on the back of your neck, keeping you down... or maybe it's global warming... who can tell."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Actually , Appleton is against little girls setting up their cookie and lemonade stands, as evidenced by the fact that the city made it illegal and then the cops enforced the law."

    True, but you need to judge these officials by the warm-fuzzy sentiments which (they claim) they have in their hearts, not based on their actual behavior.

  • Nipplemancer ||

    "It's certainly not that Appleton is against little girls setting up their cookie and lemonade stands. But the overall intent of the ordinance was to protect the vendors at these events," said Stueck. "To get a little bit of security to the vendors who were at the events."


    Rent-seeking vendors squeeze out competition, police mop up.

  • Restoras||

    ^This.

    And also, idiot politicians. Will Appleton have the good sense to turn them out?

  • Kristen||

    "To get a little bit of security to the vendors who were at the events"

    Can you say "protection racket"?

  • ||

    That's a nice lemonade stand you got there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

  • ||

    Can you say "STATE ENFORCED protection racket"?

    I'm surprised they did'nt use the SWAT team to take 'em down.

  • ||

    Midway Police Chief Kelly Morningstar says police also didn't know how the lemonade was made, who made it or what was in it.

    Maybe the good people of Midway should carefully consider whether someone who's too bloody stupid that he doesn't even know that lemonade consists of lemon juice, water and sugar should be trusted to exercise authority in their name.

    -jcr

  • ||

    You don't wring out the juices of dead rats into yours?

  • T||

    My leomnade has spam and rat. Well, mostly spam.

  • Fabius||

    Only when I can find plague rat. Otherwise, it's not worth the calories.

  • ||

    You're assuming it really was pure lemonade. The point is that they don't know how this pulpy liquid, being sold as lemonade, was made or what contaminants were in it.

    Now, it's not a terribly big concern to my mind, since the caveat emptor principle seems tailor-made for small children handing out cups of yellow liquid.

  • Nine year old Georgia girl||

    Is it wrong to cut the lemonade with gasoline?

  • Mensan||

    Yes, it is wrong. You're supposed to use antifreeze.

  • ||

    And if there are health issues with the lemonade what's the difference if they have a license or not. I mean if someone really wanted to sue they could find out who sold the lemonade.

  • sarcasmic||

    Once upon a time this was a country where we were free to do anything that was not explicitly prohibited by law.

    Now we are free to do only that which is allowed.

  • ||

    Operating a business without a license is prohibited by law in these jurisdictions.

  • sarcasmic||

    Free people do not need to ask permission to do something that is not against the law.

  • ||

    So your position is that something has to be completely banned or completely allowed under all circumstances.

    I take it you're against drivers' licenses, too.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's not like revoking licenses actually keeps suspended drivers off the road.

    Good intentions. Shit for results.

  • ||

    You don't actually think that a drivers' license proves that its bearer is competent to drive an automobile, do you? Try driving in the DC/Northern VA region; you'll ditch that fantasy double-quick.

  • strat||

    It could be worse. I cackle whenever I see Maryland's "Please drive gently" signs at the border. "Please use lane discipline" would be more helpful.

  • Fluffy||

    Well, before, Tulpa the asswipe apologist for rent-seeking and the power of the state said that his complaint against food trucks is that they don't pay property taxes.

    But these little girls live in the property in question. That means that property taxes are paid on it. So he cleverly switches to, "But it's TEH LAW!!@#!@!"

  • ||

    Actually, I think this particular law is stupid for other reasons, and the way it's enforced is stupid as well. What I'm disagreeing with here is the notion that this is a case of govt prohibiting something that's not against the law.

  • You're a fucking idiot||

    "Actually, I think"

    You can stop right there no one cares.

  • 'merica||

    FREE! Is the key! If these girls set up shop and "give" their goodies away, the police or city ord. Cant do anything if people want to "tip" these girls for their service. If this were the case id gladly drop a $50 in their "tip jar" right in front of said police and mayorialship!

  • cw||

    It's like prostitution: You can have sex with someone for free, but, if you dare pay them, then the LEOs will bust you. Is money some kind of evil device or some such? What if you were to barter instead of exchange currency?

  • cw||

    BTW, if you were to those girls a tip, the cops would probably nab you for breaking the ordinance. You did give them that EVIL money for their products knowing they didn't have that government privilege, the business license.

  • You're a fucking idiot||

    "the cops would probably nab you for breaking the ordinance."

    1) no, they wouldn't, that's your stupid childish cynicism talking

    2) SO FUCKING WHAT IF THEY DO? You'd win in court, which is exactly what the fuck you want, attention.

  • ||

    I'd like to think that these ordinances are building new libertarians 1 or 2 at a time, but the Cynical side of the Force tells me otherwise.

  • ||

    "There were tears at first. There was big disappointment. When you're nine and somebody tells you you can't, you're not happy,"

    The force is right. I see nothing in this statement that says "fuck the government". I just see acquiescence.

  • ||

    What's the problem here?

  • Taxpaying Small Business||

    Selling unlicensed, untaxed food and beverages in competition with officially licensed, permitted food vendors is commercial anarchy and economic terrorism.

  • ||

    I'm a Republican, but this is ridiculous. This is the problem with politics, the un-common sense sides of both parties are ripping apart the sane world we have lived in but continue to lose more and more of. If you can't find things to offer people that can compete with a nine year old kid selling lemonade, trying to save up to buy a bike, then you shouldn't be in business anyway. And a nine year old will learn soon enough how much in taxes the government takes, give em a moment of innocence, please

  • ||

    I'm not seeing how this is cops shutting down lemonade stands on their own initiative. These are government officials, elected officials, enacting legislation and then directing law enforcement officers to enforce it. The only people to blame here are the idiots who elected these people and demand that they do something.

    You don't like these kinds of incidents? Well stop overreacting every time something bad happens and demanding the government protect you. Cops don't enjoy doing this kind of stuff, we think it's just as stupid as you do.

  • ||

    It's still thugs shutting down lemonade stands, you fucking moron. It doesn't matter if they think it's stupid; the fact is, they're doing it. Is that too hard for you to understand, big guy?

  • ||

    Yeah you're right the country would be better of without us. You can take care of yourself right?

    You really don't see that it's not cops shutting down lemonade stands, it's elected officials doing it? I guess it's much easier to blame the people you don't like than to actually get off your ass and vote someone into office that won't pass these kinds of laws. Who needs the hassle of placing the blame where it belongs and doing something about it, when you can just complain instead.

  • ||

    I need you?

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You delusional fuckbag; you've swallowed your own moronic propaganda for too long. It's good for a laugh, though.

    Pigs like you are more dangerous to me than anyone else. Don't you get that? Clearly not.

  • Warty||

    No, you buffoon. Without the thin blue line harassing teenagers and giving out speeding tickets, you'd be getting raped to death by cannibals RIGHT FUCKING NOW.

  • ||

    Yeah people never call the police to complain about teenagers hanging around their neighborhood or business, we just seek them out on our own...

    Oh and no one ever complains about other people running lights in front of them or not yielding. After all, those other idiot drivers deserve a traffic ticket, but not you.

  • Warty||

    Right on, bro. Keep on being awesome.

  • ||

    It's nice that dunphy has a friend, now.

  • ||

    Well it's a good thing we have cops around to keep teenagers hanging out around businesses, otherwise those businesses would have to capitalize on a potential customer/employee.

    And we simply cannot have that.

  • sarcasmic||

    Be gentle with him. He has an AOL account. Might as well be in a wheelchair.

  • ||

    Oh I know you don't need anyone. No police, no fire department, no EMT's. We're all useless. That's OK though, one less call we have to respond to. I actually appreciate people like you, you don't call when your house or car is broken into, or when you're robbed at gunpoint, or you get in an accident because you're too important to follow traffic control devices. It makes for much less paperwork for me, so thank you.

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You are a useless piece of human garbage. But you already know that.

  • Warty||

    It's amazing how most cops have no idea why normal people loathe them, isn't it?

  • ||

    It's stunning, actually, how delusional they are. But that's what happens when you are, in effect, a gang.

  • Mirror||

    Episiarch|7.18.11 @ 11:50AM|#
    It's stunning, actually, how delusional they are.

    It is indeed.

  • ||

    It's amazing how we keep getting so many calls for service when everyone hates us. I guess they just temporarily forget.

  • Pip||

    Great to see you've got your priorities straight.

    No go eat a box of shit.

  • Mirror||

    Pip|7.18.11 @ 11:50AM|#
    No go eat a box of shit.

    The apex of anarchist debating skills.

  • sarcasmic||

    I used to call the police when I was a victim of a crime.
    But all they ever did was search me, run my ID for warrants, and then leave without filing a report.

    All cops are good for is generating revenue for the state by handing out tickets and confiscating property when a crime is committed against the state.

    When the crime has an actual victim they could care less.

    Fuck 'em.

  • ||

    Just less paperwork? I thought it would actually be less work, but thanks for the heads up that all you really do after all those events is write down what happened.

  • ||

    That is pretty much what happens. No one wants us around until something happens, so yeah, we show up afterwards and write a report.

  • sarcasmic||

    In my experience all cops do when responding to a crime is look for evidence of drugs so they can steal your property, and when failing to find evidence of drugs they leave.

  • ||

    I don't know where you live, but I assure you it's not like that everywhere. When I arrested two people for breaking into a car the other day all the person calling in got was a handshake and a thank you, and the victim got his property back. I don't think either of them had a bad experience with us.

  • CT||

    You must not work within 100 miles of a large city.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    It makes for much less paperwork for me, so thank you.

    Don't forget to confiscate and erase those cell phone cameras. I hear destroyed evidence lightens your workload considerably.

  • ||

    I have no problem with being recorded. I'm recording you so it's only fair. Bring a real camera for all I care, no need for low resolution cell phone cameras. I don't know what this obsession with recording us is. I can promise you 99.99% of us have no problem with it at all, you're not ruffling as many feathers as you think.

  • ||

    I have no problem with being recorded. I'm recording you so it's only fair.

    I'll give props for that. Bully!

    I can promise you 99.99% of us have no a problem with it

    Fixed. The evidence indicates otherwise.

  • sarcasmic||

    99% of cops give the rest a bad name.

  • robc||

    Only 1 in 10000 have a problem?

    Then why are there so many arrests/seizures of cameras?

    Your estimate is WAY off. At least 2 orders of magnitude and I would guess about 3.

  • ||

    How many police interactions happen everyday, and how many of those involve an officer seizing a camera? I don't think I'm way off at all. Yes it happens because there are idiots in every job, but it's an extremely small percentage. It shouldn't happen at all, but I challenge you to name any job performed by humans where they get it exactly right every time.

  • ||

    The problem with that stat, pecker wad, is that when I fuck up nobody gets killed.

    And if they did, I couldn't play the immunity card and walk.

    Die in a fucking fire, you piece of shit.

  • ||

    When you carry a gun and have the power to kill and imprison, I do expect you to get it right every fucking time.

  • ||

    Dude, if you think something the elected officials tell you to do is immoral or stupid, you have an obligation (seeing as how you take an oath to protect and serve us, the public, not them the government) to tell those government officials to fuck off.

  • CT||

    Why are all of the posters besides the cop 13 years old? This could have been an actual discussion.

  • ||

    Which public do I serve? The public that elected the city council who passed the ordinance? The public that complained about unlicensed vendors that caused the council to pass the ordinance? The licensed vendors who really are a legitimate business? This is a no win situation pitting one section of the public against another and using us to enforce it. I compare it to when I get a noise complaint for a party. Who am I serving here? The people having a good time enjoying their party, or the people trying to sleep without a lot of noise? Personally I don't care if you're shooting off fireworks and blasting music from 10 foot speakers, but someone else in the public does care and they will keep calling unless I do something about it. This is what we deal with 90% of the time.

  • ||

    "The public that complained about unlicensed vendors that caused the council to pass the ordinance?"

    I'll go out on a limb and say that most likely this group does not exist. Other then the vendors themselves, who gives a d*mn if a vendor is licensed or not??

    "The licensed vendors who really are a legitimate business?"

    Ah, and I guess if your are unlicensed your are not legitimate? That mindset is part of the problem. People shouldn't need to get a license to run a business.

  • sarcasmic||

    People shouldn't need to get a license to run a business.

    Free people do not need to ask permission to do something that is not otherwise against the law.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I don't know what this obsession with recording us is.

    I don't know either, but your 1%-ers (bad apples) seem to think that recording you performing your public duties in a public place with public funds should be considered felony wiretapping.

  • ||

    "or when you're robbed at gunpoint"

    This wouldn't be a fucking problem if police unions and idiot politicians around the country would stop passing gun laws.

  • ||

    My fire department is volunteer and I do pay a small yearly tax to support it. The EMT service is a joint ownership between the two hospitals in town. If I don't need their services, I don't pay for them. I don't call the cops. I won't call the cops. But I am still robbed of money to pay their bloated salaries.

  • NotSure||

    Tell me, should cops be replaced with robots ? If cops are simply there to be mindless drones to follow orders, then why not ?

  • Nipplemancer ||

    you really don't see that it actually is the cops shutting down lemonade stands. I didn't read anywhere about these elected officials going out to enforce town ordinances with their holy code books and scepters of the people's justice. They didn't smash the stand to bits as the girls cried at the edge of the driveway like Prohibition era revenuers smashing kegs, instead they sent their armed enforcers.
    It's the law, we can't ignore the law can we? Sure you can you do it all the time. If police unions can keep murderers and rapists on the job, surely they can prevent an officer who ignores something like this from being disciplined.

  • ||

    The city council is completely blameless huh? I'm sure at no time in the past did the people of the city complain about unlicensed vendors and the council passed an ordinance to prevent it either. None of that had any effect, it was all the police's fault.

  • robc||

    I see no one letting the city council off the hook.

    Are you too simple minded to blame mulitple people?

    Cops/City/Voters are all to blame. Well, if the voters do their job next election, I will let them off the hook.

    Where the hell is the police leadership in this. The Chief should be laughing at the city council and telling them "Fuck no, we arent enforcing that shit." Of course, he would be more likely to do that if he knew the officers under him would ignore an order to enforce.

  • ||

    There's your answer, police leadership. Yes I can practice selective enforcement, but I can't ignore an order from a superior unless it violates the Constitution, state law, or department policy. This was a valid city ordinance. If a city licensing vendors violates the Constitution please enlighten me as to what part.

  • robc||

    9th fucking amendment.

  • ||

    Once again, this is not the federal government or the state. It is a city council practicing code enforcement. No crime was committed, no one went to jail. The 9th amendment does not apply here because this is a city ordinance.

    Now if the state passed a law making it a criminal act to have an unlicensed lemonade stand on your lawn? Yes absolutely you have a case for it being wildly unconstitutional.

  • robc||

    The 9th amendment does not apply here because this is a city ordinance.

    Someone doesnt understand how the constitution works, and it isnt me.

    At least since the 14th (if not before), the 9th absolutely applied to city ordinances. City == State as far as the feds are concerned, so your city vs state distinction really makes no sense. Cities are created by the states under state rules.

    Pre 14th amendment, you might have had a decent argument though.

  • ||

    No I do understand. This is not a state law or city ordinance that denies a right. City ordinances are distinct from state law in that they cannot take away rights guaranteed by state or federal law. A city ordinance for licensing vendors does not violate state or federal law or the Constitution (it is supposed to be capitalized by the way). The 9th amendment does not and has not applied to code enforcement by cities, counties, or states. Licensing and regulating something is not denying a fundamental right. Yes if the city said you may not under any circumstances have a lemonade stand on your property under penalty of law, then the 9th amendment applies.

    Now if you want to make the argument that all licensing and regulation violates the 9th amendment, then that's a different issue. Personally I think you might have something there. Steep licensing fees are prohibitive for a lemonade stand and effectively deny them their right to have one. Professionally, there is a long history of precedent that says licensing is not a violation of the 9th amendment.

  • robc||

    Now if you want to make the argument that all licensing and regulation violates the 9th amendment, then that's a different issue. Personally I think you might have something there.

    Im pretty sure that is the argument Ive been making for the last 20 years. Well, maybe not ALL, but close enough for everyone but Tulpa.

    there is a long history of precedent that says licensing is not a violation of the 9th amendment.

    I doubt its ever been argued on 9th amendment grounds. Nothing ever is.

    The pro-abortion folks have a MUCH better argument on 9th amendment grounds than they do on emanation and penumbra grounds.

  • ||

    In the case of the girls from Wisconsin, it is exactly a law that prohibits them from selling lemonade. Since they fall within the two block radius of an event, they are denied the right on their property. The 9th does apply, asshole.

    Also, they would probably have a 4th Amendment argument since the law selectively persecuted people based on where they live (2 blocks from an event), without giving a compelling reason for safety and or security.

    As a cop, you had a chance to take a stand for liberty, yet you chose to be a stooge.

    And i'll play this little game I always like to play with cops who come on here. It's a two question test. Ready? Here goes.

    Have you ever seen a cop break the law and not arrested him for what you had arrested a civilian* for?

    have you ever witnessed a cop using excessive force or unlawfully taken advantage of a civilian*, and not arrested him on the spot?

    If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then you are a scumbag. If the answer to both is no, then you are either on your way to your first day at the academy, or you're a fucking liar.

    *"civilian" is the term cops use for regular people, not noting the irony that they are also civilians.

  • ||

    For the 9th to be applicable we have to be talking about a right that was widely accepted to exist in 1789 (or at least a right that is intimately related to such a right). It's not an inkblot.

  • robc||

    I think there is a good chance that a cop shutting down a kid's lemonade stand in 1789 would have been tarred and feathered.

  • Nipplemancer ||

    The politicians certainly do not get a pass, nor do the rent-seekers who put the politicians up to these barriers to entry. It is more than just cops shutting down lemonade stands. This is exactly what a free market isn't.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "it's not cops shutting down lemonade stands, it's elected officials doing it?"

    By that reasoning, it's elected officials, not cops, who arrest murderers,rapists and burglars, because it was these officials who empowered the police to take murderers, rapists and burglars off the street. So if a policeman tries to take credit for cracking a rape case and putting the criminal behind bars, realize that the cop is simply stealing the credit for the visionary legislators who made rape a crime and gave the police the legal tools to deal with that crime.

  • ||

    Inapposite analogy. The analogue would be a cop arresting an unarmed rapist at a known location who had been identified by several onlookers as the perpetrator of the rapes. I would agree that a cop who does that deserves no credit beyond just doing his or her job.

    Now if the cops had to conduct an elaborate investigation with a great deal of personal initiative to discover these lemonade stands, I'd agree they should be blamed for them being shut down.

  • T||

    The guy enforcing the bullshit order is just as guilty as the guy who issued the order. I thought we established this in 1946.

  • ||

    I don't agree with the law either, but it was passed by a city council. This is not a federal or state law. What exactly is unconstitutional about it?

  • ||

    I thought we established this in 1946.

    No, we established that there are some actions that are so heinous that orders to perform them must be disobeyed.

    Closing a lemonade stand != mass murder

  • T||

    We established that claiming you were just following orders isn't a defense. I'm not saying shutting down lemonade stands is equivalent to mass murder. I'm saying orders don't remove your moral agency or resposnibility. It's a fucking cop-out, and a weak one at that.

    Steeliv and the rest of the boys in blue always have a choice, every single time. It may boil down to follow orders or quit, but that's still a choice and they have still have agency. Pretending that orders absolve you from criticism is bullshit. You still chose to follow the order.

  • ||

    We established that claiming you were just following orders isn't a defense.

    No, you are wrong about this. The Nuremberg trials were a very specific case (that did not involve US law, by the way) of particularly heinous crimes. They do not imply that a cop who orders you to cross the street can then arrest you for jaywalking.

  • T||

    They do not imply that a cop who orders you to cross the street can then arrest you for jaywalking.

    Wait, what? Way to conflate two seperate issues, tulpa. The cop (acting in his official capacity as agent of the state) does not get to claim that his following orders of the state that are morally questionable is a defense. Everybody retains moral agency, Tulpa. That was one of the points of Nuremburg, and why the superior officer defense has been losing ground steadily since then.

    In your (admittedly somewhat bizarre) example, the fact that the cop told you cross the street would be a defense to prosecution. In the real world, he could get away with doing just that, since you would have no proof he told you to cross the street. You'd eat the jaywalking ticket. And here in Texas, if you refused to cross the street, you could get a ticket for refusing to obey the cop while he was directing traffic. But I really fail to see how the situations are comparable, so maybe you can explain it to me.

  • ||

    The point is that only very weighty moral concerns carry with them a legally-enforceable duty to disobey orders. Murder yes, jaywalking no.

  • T||

    Wait, I forget, are you one of the ones who thinks if you're not legally culpable you're not morally culpable? I kid, but only barely.

    The whole point of this exercise, Tulpa, is that you don't get to pawn off your responsibility up the chain. These guys may have had no legally defensible duty to disobey. But that doesn't let them off the hook morally, and they don't get to pass off all the blame to the elected officials. At the end of the day, the cop on the street is just as guilty for enforcing the law as the council was for passing it. Steeliv trying to pass the buck to the voter is complete crap.

  • robc||

    Even more so than the WoD (which is a far more serious issue), police leadership ordering me to shut down a kid's lemonade stand would cause me to quit. I cant work for someone with that little in the way of sense.

    Of course, there is a reason why I could never be a cop (besides my way too high IQ).

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't think cops much care what they are ordered to do as long as it involves having power over people.
    They think people obey them out of respect.
    It's not respect.

    It's fear.

  • ||

    It's probably a mixture of both respect and fear in most people. People who don't read the Balko horror stories and haven't been the victim of police abuses probably have nothing but respect for cops.

  • sarcasmic||

    You may be right. I used to respect them until I had to deal with them. Now it's a 50/50 mix of fear and contempt.

  • ||

    A distant relative of mine spent 30 years in Spandau Prison for just such a thing.

  • Xenocles||

    You know who else had Nazi relatives?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "The analogue would be a cop arresting an unarmed rapist"

    You can't be completely sure he's unarmed until you're patting him down - so even under your scenario there is still some difficulty involved in getting the guy - it's best practice to assume a rape suspect is armed until you've confirmed the contrary. And if there was no difficulty doing the arrest, why wouldn't the "onlookers" do the arrest themselves, instead of calling the cops? Methinks the "onlookers" would be kind of nervous about the rapist and want the police to do any rough stuff that may be needed.

    This goes back to my point - it's absurd to give sole credit to letgislators for arresting rapists - even in the "easy" situation you posit. And if we acknowledge that cops play a morally-relevant role in arresting rapists, then they also play a morally-relevant role in hassling lemonade-stand owners.

    My own view is that if the police obviously dislike the job of hassling little girls, and if they only do the bare minimum of enforcement to avoid getting fired, then I won't blame or criticize the cops, but if they want to get high and mighty and use evasion-of-responsibility arguments and pretend to be victims and viciously denounce anyone who criticizes them for hassling little girls, then pardon me for not taking them seriously.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And if you see police lobbyists asking the legislature to change the laws and give them more money and power, then it would be appropriate to say: "So, you're not even-hand enforcers of the rules, after all! You play a role in what rules the legislature passes - in fact, you are more influential over the legislature than ordinary citizens. If you *really* don't like hassling little girls, why not get your lobbyists to work on changing the law - and if your lobbyists don't care enough about the issue, then that means you actually *are* OK with hassling girls.

  • T||

    Befehl ist Befehl. It's not your fault, right? You had to do it, no matter how stupid, ill-advised, or even unconstitutional it was. Those evil elected officials made you do it.

    DIAF.

  • Vesman||

    I would love to call the police when my house is broke into, but the cops would see my cannabis and arrest me so, so the police are my enemy in all circumstances and at all times.

  • You're a fucking idiot||

    "You can take care of yourself right?"

    Just so we're clear fuckwit, your job is NOT to "take care of me" so lose that retarded delusion right now.

  • sarcasmic||

    Voters are to blame?
    What choice to voters have?
    Voters get to choose between the guy who wants to meddle in this or the guy who wants to meddle in that.
    People who do not want to control things do not seek positions of power.

  • Warty||

    Another fucking pig? Jesus Christ.

  • Mirror||

    The horrors of a public forum. Maybe you should leave.

  • Warty||

    Think about your current little bitchy passive-aggressive handle, anonopussy, and then think about what you said. Do it a few times.

  • Mirror||

    Nah.

  • ||

    You don't like these kinds of incidents? Well stop overreacting every time something bad happens and demanding the government protect you.

    New here, eh?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: steeliv,

    I'm not seeing how this is cops shutting down lemonade stands on their own initiative. These are government officials, elected officials, enacting legislation and then directing law enforcement officers to enforce it.


    And yet you do not see how this is being done on their own initiative?

    The government officials legislate and then send government officials to do the bidding of government official. Nope, not by their own initiative!

    You don't like these kinds of incidents? Well stop overreacting every time something bad happens and demanding the government protect you. Cops don't enjoy doing this kind of stuff, we think it's just as stupid as you do.


    Don't like it when pimp hits you? Well, don't ya go runnin' to pimp when you gets in trouble, woman!

  • Restoras||

    Perhaps the cops in this case should practice selective enforcement, like they do every other day of the week/year/road to retirement, along with some common effin' sense.

    Face it, what's going to happen to the cops that decide to not enforce this abomination? Nothing. And if something did happen, you simply threaten/enlighten the pol with those nice union votes. Be ashame if something happened to them, eh, councilman?

    Be a man and not a freakin' piece of state apparatus.

  • ||

    They probably don't practice selective enforcement of crimes that will piss off connected interests who have the ear of city councilmen.

  • Restoras||

    I wouldn't be surprised.

  • robc||

    Then they are sheep not men.

  • Fluffy||

    I can see what you're saying, but I have to tell you that your complaint falls on deaf ears with me.

    It's really too damn bad.

    You signed up to act as the armed representative of the state. That entangles you morally with every last one of the state's decisions. Sorry.

    Don't like it? Quit.

  • ||

    Ron and Rand Paul are involved with the state's decisions at a much higher level. Do you have the same attitude toward them?

  • Fluffy||

    When we bombed Saddam Hussein's government offices, we didn't individually determine the relative guilt of every janitor in those buildings.

    Legislators are a grey area, since you can have minority legislators actively resisting a particular policy. Pretty much everyone in the executive branch or in law enforcement at any level of government is morally entangled in that way, though. So if Ron Paul had, say, accepted a Cabinet post, despite his previous record he'd then be just another Goering Panetta.

  • ||

    You're right I did sign up to be an armed representative of the state. I also took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. (2 in fact, I was in the Army as well) I take that oath seriously. I will not follow an order that violates the Constitution. This city ordinance is not unconstitutional. Is it stupid? Absolutely. Would I enforce it if I was just driving by and saw the lemonade stand? No way. Would I enforce it if directed by my boss? Unfortunately yes, to keep my job. As I'm sure you've experienced bosses are the same idiots just about everywhere, so yes this is something else I complain about and choose to ignore when I can.

  • robc||

    Unfortunately yes, to keep my job.

    And there is your moral failing.

  • ||

    Wow robc, you're a real hero.

  • robc||

    you're a real hero.

    Not in the least.

    I have my own moral failings, feel free to point them out.

  • ||

    I'm guessing you've had a lot of jobs. I mean if you had to quit every time your boss or your company said or did something you didn't like, you've probably had hundreds of different jobs.

    "We're going to extend this sale for another week" "I quit"

    "I'm going to need you to make copies of this memo" "I quit"

    Must be exhausting.

  • T||

    Must be exhausting.

    Probably less exhausting than trying to find excuses for poor behavior.

  • robc||

    I work for myself.

    My boss is still an idiot, but we get along well.

    And, you misinterpreted what I said. I wouldnt quit at every disagreement with a boss, just those that showed that the boss is clueless. As I said up above: "I cant work for someone with that little in the way of sense."

    I have fired clients in the past. Some of them arent worth working for.

    Standard 80/20 rule. 20% of your clients are going to cause 80% of your headaches. And generally, they only bring in about 5% of your revenue.

  • sarcasmic||

    And, you misinterpreted what I said. I wouldnt quit at every disagreement with a boss, just those that showed that the boss is clueless.

    I've been looking for a new employer ever since I was instructed to put a known bug back into the software because the fix had not been explicitly approved by the committee in charge.

    I didn't quit on the spot because I have a family to feed.
    Tell you what though, if this had happened ten years ago I probably would have told them to get fucked right on the spot.

  • ||

    If someone morally objects to the sale being extended, then yes they should quit. If they don't then they deserve the scorn of those who also believe the sale should not have been extended.

    Although I would probably point and laugh at anyone who morally objected to a sale being extended. Ditto the memo copying.

  • robc||

    Depends what the memo says.

    Or if the copy being made was of an obviously modified original that was being used to obfiscate the real memo. In that situation, quitting instead of copying the memo seems exactly the right thing to do.

    On the sale, yeah I agree with you. Then again, if the company was taking a bath on the sale, extending it might drive the company into bankruptcy so quitting now and getting out might be the right thing to do also.

  • ||

    No, but I have quit jobs when the boss ordered me to do something unethical. I have quit jobs when a boss ordered me to lie.

  • ||

    Nice gymnastics!

    In your original comment you were assigning individual guilt to every cop immediately upon becoming a cop, regardless of what they enforce or how they enforce it, so are you now backing out of that?

  • Colin77||

    Agree with steeliv. Anger at the cops is just shooting the messenger. The real ire should be directed at the morons that think up such regulations. Personally, I am glad when stuff like this happens -- it might force more people to contemplate what government is really about. Also gives these kids an interaction with government they will never forget that will hit home far more than any civics class.

  • ||

    One would hope it will lead them to becoming anti-establishment, but I won't hold my breath.

    And since the cops are supposed to work for us, the citizen's, anger to their enforcement of immoral or unjust behavior is most definitely justified.

    Or was it wrong to be mad at the cops that released dogs and used fire hoses on peaceful protesters during civil rights? I mean after all, they were just following orders.

  • ||

    "One would hope it will lead them to becoming anti-establishment, but I won't hold my breath."

    When stories like this hit the local news, they usually frame them in a good learning experience for the kids in understanding how these rules protect all of us, including other children from ingesting something that the government hasn't licensed. So in the end, its framed as something good for all the children.

  • SFC B||

    I dunno... while I see where it is penultimately the fault of the regulators, the police still throw their support behind the people running for office who will increase the power of the police. A city council person who campaigned on a platform that would reduce the bloat of laws would have their local police departments supporting their opponent.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Cops don't enjoy doing this kind of stuff, we think it's just as stupid as you do.

    We were just following Superior Orders!

  • ||

    Because if we don't do this, it will be just like Somalia in here, and we don't want that now.

  • PZ Myers||

    ROAAAAAAAAADZZZZZZZZ!!!!1!!!1!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!ELEVEN!

  • herve villachaize||

    Right, cops don't like hassling people for no reason... that would be crazy talk.

  • NotSure||

    Don't you people know, the mass deaths caused by little girls selling lemonade is a great threat to freedom and liberty. The government has a duty to protect those freedoms.

  • Nipplemancer ||

    I posted the GA link the other day on FB and almost immediately a friend commented about liability concerns if a stranger managed to somehow poison the lemonade that the little girls were selling. I deleted the post entirely to keep the stupid away.

  • Almanian||

    Jesus fucking Christ - thank goodness for your quick action.

    "Liability if someone poisoned it...". Fuck, fuck, fuck, now I need to go give my brain a shower cause that's stuck in it....FUCK!!!

  • Ed Donegan||

    I am betting the quality of the lemonade being sold is limited only by that toxicity flowing into households from government run/monopolized water utilities.

  • Edwin||

    if kids were smart they'd sell coffee, not lemonade

  • Restoras||

    Maybe they'll start selling tea.

  • Nine year old Georgia girl||

    Next time we'll offer free donuts to the pigs public servants.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Remember, little girls, government, like any other organized crime syndicate, wants its cut.

    As long as you kick down that payment, you can do business.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Midway, GA is in Liberty County.

  • robc||

    That might be ironic if it wasnt for the fact that GA has more counties than there are words in the english language, so there had to be at least 1 Liberty County.

  • Eric Cartman||

    Those little bitches just need the right phone. http://www.homadge.com/2011/04.....iness.html

    A perfect example of how out of touch with reality the average citiserf is theese days.

  • In touch with utopia||

    I think it is great that little Suzie got to build her high rise in the middle of a residential neighborhood. I'm signing up with Verison today.

  • Picklesnit||

    Research suggests selling lemonade on the corner as a child can lead to prostitution later. Government knows best.

  • Midway Police||

    The girls are now doing chores and yard work to make money.

    Step away from the yard work and show me your chore licenses.

  • H man||

    Are they being paid minimum wage? Do they have withholding taken out? What is their drug testing policy?

    Also they're taking jobs away from Mexicans doing jobs that Americans won't do.

  • Ray||

    No shit, how can doing yardwork for pay not be covered under the same asinine bullshit the lemonade was? They are still providing a service for compensation and operating without a business license, etc. A little civil disobedience is needed. If I'm mommy, set up the lemonade stands and don't take it down. Force the fucking cops on TV to physically remove the kids and tear down the stand.

  • IRS||

    Be sure to report that income on your parents' tax returns! Seriously!

  • ||

    What does OSHA have to say about children and yard work?

  • H man||

    Hand tools must simply be safe without specifications http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshawe.....&p_id=9849

    Osha regluations are CFR 29
    Child labor is under different regulations.

  • SFC B||

    By doing the yard work for themselves they are preventing someone from having enough customers to justify expanding/starting their own lawn-care service. This means a new truck isn't bought, or new lawn mowers, no fuel is bought. It's really a HUGE violation of the Commerce Clause.

    Why do these girls hate The Constitution?!!

  • ||

    On June 1, the Appleton city council passed an ordinance preventing vendors from selling products within a two-block radius of local events.

    LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECHES

  • NotSure||

    It must be pretty humiliating for a business call in the cops to prevent competition from some 10 year old.

  • T||

    Hey, if I have to pay minimum wage and abide by the health code, those little bitches should, too.

  • ||

    Bzzzt. The lemonade stands were on private property, so it's an entirely different matter from the food trucks parking in the street.

    Your glib treatment of my positions continues to never cease to amaze me.

  • sasob||

    Be a goddamned shame if anyone in this country ever made a dollar without the public sector getting a cut of it or giving its permission.

  • Public Sector||

    And just who do you think prints those dollars?

    Jerk.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Actually , Appleton is against little girls setting up their cookie and lemonade stands, as evidenced by the fact that the city made it illegal and then the cops enforced the law.

    Is this reason's version of "World Ends: Women and Minorities Hit Hardest"?

  • DUNPHY||

    Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The cops did their jobs. There is nothing to see here. Typcial example of cop-hating libertarian knee-jerk response...

  • Kristen||

    Funny how the cops don't do their jobs when I pass a speed trap going 5 mph over the limit and never get pulled over. But shutting down a kids' lemonade stand on private property? Just doing our jobs, bitchez!

  • Or||

    Don't like the laws? Get off your fat ass and change them instead of whining on a blog like a spoiled adolescent.

  • ||

    considering many reasonoids brag about skipping jury duty, one place they actually could have an impact on changing an unjust system, your post is ironic

  • ||

    I recently got called; fluffy and tulpa encouraged me to participate. I sat on a jury for an assault case as an alternate.

    I even told them that I didn't trust cops because I felt the drug war incentivizes dishonest behavior. I liked the experience and would do it again if asked.

    My feelings towards law enforcement were not improved by the arresting officer who testified in a Pirates jersey.

  • ||

    bwahahahahaha!

    seriously!?

    if we went to court in anything less than professional business attire, that would be GUARANTEED discipline

    that's embarassing.

  • ||

    the article itself quotes aldermen, etc. JUSTIFYING THIS PERVERSION.

    if the cops decided on their own to pull this shit, i'd blame them

    apparently, as is usually the case with enforcement of such assmunchery, there are people who WANT the cops enforcing these laws who control the PD's.

    these aren't random patrol officers deciding "hey, i'm going to go harass these lemonade stands".

    their city council meetings, and city employee offices should be flooded with protesters.

  • Pissiarch||

    Too hard. Bitching on a blog: easy.

  • Colin||

    The girls are now doing chores and yard work to make money.

    They probably need a license for that, too.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Query to the board - would you rather have selective enforcement or the banning of "little girls lemonade stands"? I understand the ideal choice is to not have regulations concerning vendors, but that is not on the table.

  • Fluffy||

    Why is that not on the table?

    Particularly in this case, since the stand was on private property.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    For the same reasons why any other business on "private property" has to comply with city ordinances (health code, fire code, etc.)

    All I am saying is IF there is going to be a law about this, THEN it needs to be applied fairly and across the board; it does not matter if cute little girls are running the business or if a fat old bastard with a cigarette dangling out of his mouth is running it.

  • SFC B||

    I'm sorry, but if you're a vendor of cold drinks at a fair in Georgia in the summer, and you cannot compete against a couple of kids that are a two block walk from you, then you deserve your fate.

  • ||

    rubbish. there is a concept called "de minimis". look it up

    the simple truth is that even if lemonade stands are a technical violation of some stupid-ass code in some jurisdictions, for decades the powers that be have ignored them under the concept of 'doing otherwise would be stupid as fuck' and life went on

    stop being a simpering boot licking toady

  • Fluffy||

    BTW, the article says they just passed this ordinance on June 1.

    So apparently before June 1, it was "on the table" at this exact location.

    And the article also says that they had run this stand before. So we don't have here a tale where regulations intended to impact "major" vendors caught these little girls up in their net unintentionally; it seems pretty obvious that on June 1 in preparation for an upcoming event the City Council sat down and DELIBERATELY CRAFTED a regulation specifically designed to stop these individual girls from opening their lemonade stand.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    it seems pretty obvious that on June 1 in preparation for an upcoming event the City Council sat down and DELIBERATELY CRAFTED a regulation specifically designed to stop these individual girls from opening their lemonade stand.

    There is no evidence for that proposition in the article whatsoever. None and Zero - you just made that up.

    The more likely explanation is that last year there were beau-coups vendors clogging the streets, and on June 1st, in preparation for the Big Annual Old Car Show, the Council met and said "oh great, here we go again. Can we do something about this?"

  • ||

    Your glib treatment of my positions

    It's like there's some sort of Axis of Glib tormenting you, isn't it?

  • ||

    The fact you don't even address the meaty center of my comment but rather jump to insult me merely confirms my diagnosis.

  • T||

    Were you an original named member of the Axis of Glib? Or did you just get targeted as the War on Glib expanded?

  • ||

    OK, while I think there are legitimate reasons for local govt licensing of businesses, in particular businesses selling consumable items, these are clearly cases of rent-seeking, given the councilman's statement about "security" for existing vendors in the second case and the exorbitant fees in the first case. If it costs a lemonade stand that's open for one day 30% as much in fees as it costs a restaurant that's open year-round, that's a pretty serious indication of rent-seeking.

    Of course, one wonders why the mom with the 20 gallons of lemonade didn't simply visit a neighbor 2.001 blocks away from the festival and ask to set up the lemonade stand on their property instead. I doubt many people would refuse to allow this (I sure as hell would let them).

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    OK, while I think there are legitimate reasons for local govt licensing of businesses

    So much the worse for you, then. What are these "legitimate reasons"?

  • ||

    For businesses in general, streamlined enforcement of fraud statutes would be the main justification.

    For food and drink purveyors it's an issue of protecting public health through inspections and streamlining civil actions in cases of food poisoning.

    Basically, you want to make sure that people feel they can trust businesses and food servicers. As much as first principles libertarianism would imply that we should approach every food purchase with Cartesian skepticism, you can't have a functioning society that way.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    The choice is not "caveat emptor/Cartesian skepticism" or "government licensing". That is a false dichotomy.

    Do you know how I choose a particular good, among a range of goods available, to purchase on Amazon? Do you know how I choose among say, five different Korean restaurants on Yelp when I go out to eat?

    I will give you a hint: 50 people would not have taken the time to write great reviews for Sun Tong Luck Club if the Sun Tong Luck Club handed out poison for food or defrauded its customers.

  • ||

    How do you know Amazon or Yelp isn't deleting unfavorable comments? And of course food poisoning doesn't have to be universal to be a problem. If 1 of every 50 people eating at Sun Tong Luck Club get E. coli poisoning, they could still easily get a ton of favorable reviews.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    How do I know government licensing is doing its job? How many times have I seen Chinese places that were certified "healthy" last month get shut down the next? I know that it pains you so to have to actually do some research before you do a thing (eating, drinking, buying a major product), but a "government license" is more meaningless than 10 Yelp reviews. There is no "magic symbol" that lets you just turn your brain off, Tulpa. Sorry about the reality check.

  • ||

    Well that's a question of competence rather than justification.

  • robc||

    Fortunately, no one has ever got E Coli from a licensed restaurant ever.

  • Eric Cartman||

    And no plane has ever crashed due to unlicensed pilot error.

  • ||

    @Tulpa

    When people get sick from eating at a restaurant it is most likely caused by poor employee hygiene, i.e. someone not washing their hands after using the restroom. And unless someone is following every person that touches food around at all times this will continue to be the case.

    The major news stories of outbreaks (spinach a few years ago, chichi's), or the undercover dirty restaurants make for good teevee, but don't honestly reflect what actually causes the vast majority of food borne diseases.

  • ||

    That could easily be solved if we let go of Victorian attitudes toward bathroom cameras. At least put cameras covering the sinks.

  • ||

    It's not just the bathroom, it's a myriad of situations that can lead to contamination. You'd literally need to have constant surveillance on every restaurant employee.

    -------
    An aside:

    Some of the rules set up by the health dept have unintended consequences. In some places they require food handlers to wear rubber gloves. Sounds good, right?

    What actually happens though is that workers will put on one pair of gloves and use them for hours. So they go from activity to activity without washing their hands because their hands don't feel dirty. This is how you get ecoli from ordering pie: cross contamination. The reason people don't change them is because in the heat of a kitchen the sweat on your hands makes it difficult to remove and put on gloves. Woe is the cook who when orders start pouring in is fiddling with his gloves instead of turning orders.

    Think about how dirty cash money is, and remember my words when someone rings you up wearing gloves (at a deli say).

  • T||

    Ahh, yes, the old "government must do it or no one else would".

    Two word: Underwriters Laboratories. Somebody explain to me why that model won't work with food inspection, or drug approval, or workplace safety.

  • ||

    At this point, if someone got electrocuted by a UL-certified hair dryer, would everyone all of the sudden stop buying UL-certified products? Probably not. As an essential monopoly on the electric safety testing market, UL could just as easily be corrupted by payments from manufacturers as govts are corrupted by business.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    So you would buy a UL certified hair dryer after reading about an electrocution?

    No?

    Then why do you assume everybody else is stupider than you are?

  • ||

    I don't even have a hair dryer. Of course you probably wouldn't even read about an electrocution the day after it happened.

  • ||

    What are you arguing here?

  • ||

    UL suffers from the same problems as local health inspection regimes do.

  • ||

    Then what is the advantage of having the government do it?

  • ||

    The point is there's not much advantage to having the private sector do it -- and if the govt does it it will get done just as badly.

  • T||

    So if the private sector is gonna do it shittily, we might as well have the government do it shittily for more money? Or not? I'm totally confused as to what argument you're making anymore.

  • robc||

    So we are in agreement that it will suck whoever does it. So why not save some tax money at let the private organizations suck at it?

    Im not jewish, but it seems the kosher certification people do a good job. Any jews know otherwise?

  • Jim||

    Correction: it will get done just as badly at taxpayer expense.

    Why are you assuming that if two agencies are equally incompetent (in this case, UL and the gov't), that we should default to the one that requires taxes adn allows no individual choice?

  • ||

    Awww...I really wanted a response from Tulpa to this one.

    I guess it's too busy fighting off the Glib.

  • ||

    If the house falls down or the business hands out spoiled food, can we hold all the inspectors personally liable? After all they did give their "stamp of approval".

  • DUNPHY||

    There's a law for that as well.

    Trust me.

  • kinnath||

    This is a great teaching moment. The city did not ban these lemonade stands out of concern for public safety. This was done to protect the profits of a preferred class of vendor. This is what corruption looks like at the beginning.

  • want to be free?||

    Paaay moneeeey!

  • ||

    it's an entirely different matter from the food trucks parking in the street.

    Nice try, professor Huffandpuff.

    But the overall intent of the ordinance was to protect the vendors at these events," said Stueck. "To get a little bit of security to the vendors who were at the events."

    The guy is completely upfront about it.

    Next up: an ordinance prohibiting children from mowing lawns without satisfying all the requirements imposed on "professional" lawn maintenance companies. A million-dollar liability bond ought to keep the leeches at bay.

  • ||

    Nice selective quotation of my comment. So you don't see any distinction between private property and public property then? I guess that means since you can be arrested for smashing the windows of a courthouse, you can be arrested for smashing windows in your own house too.

  • ||

    I blame the kids parents. They should have taught their children a valuable lesson about peaceful resistance and the moral imperative of disobeying immoral laws by standing with their kids and telling the cops to go to hell. And then every other parent in the municipality should help their kids set up a lemonade stand. What are the cops gonna do? Arrest all the parents and stick all the kids into foster care? We roll over way too easily. I've been splitting my time between the US and Greece for the last several years, and it's shit like this that makes me want to stay in Greece. They may have big, f-d up government, but at least they don't try to regulate crap like this.

  • ||

    Were you an original named member of the Axis of Glib?

    I am leeching off their infamy. Go ahead, send me a licensing agreement, and see what happens.

  • Warty||

    That's me, Epi, and SugarFree. I charge steep licensing fees.

    By the way, life is better when you incif Tulpa.

  • T||

    $50 a day seems to be the going rate, unless you're going to be glib all year round, in which case I'm sure we can cut a deal. We have to provide some security for our current providers of Glib, you know.

  • ||

    I may have to expand it to an entire Plane of Glib soon.

    I wish Warty much happiness in his little INCIF echo chamber though. I actually agree with him that ignoring those who disagree with you makes you more content; but contentment is not the highest virtue imho.

  • T||

    contentment is not the highest virtue imho.

    More evidence that you're some kind of unAmerican terrorist, Tulpa. The American dream is to be fat, dumb, and happy, isn't it?

  • hmm||

    Dunphy would like you all to know that cops and code enforcers are not experts in law and they are just doing what they are told. He also probably doesn't approve of swat raids on lemonade stands unless the kids present a clear and present danger or the Latin phrase articulating a clear and present danger.

  • DUNPHY||

    The kid made a move. It could have been considered a deadly weapon under the right circumstances. The law is the law.

  • ||

    trolling attempts aside, no rational person could support ANY of these actions.

  • ||

    Query to the board - would you rather have selective enforcement or the banning of "little girls lemonade stands"?

    I will answer your serious question seriously (for a change).

    It doesn't necessarily even call for "selective enforcement". A threshold level of activity in the ordinance should be sufficient. In this case, the ordinance was specifically designed to eliminate competition. Not cool, man.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    A threshold level of activity in the ordinance should be sufficient.

    Does that mean a certain dollar amount in revenue or what?

  • Warty||

  • anon||

    Gotta break those kids of that evil "capitalism" mindset early!

  • ||

    So you don't see any distinction between private property and public property then?

    QUE?

  • ||

    Speaking of leeches, Michael Hiltzik has a long anguished plea to Amazon (L A Times) to stop destroying the lives and livelihoods of brick-and-mortar California merchants with their dastardly unfair refusal to become collectors for the California Dept of Revenuers.

    It's a tragedy, it is.

  • ||

    Does that mean a certain dollar amount in revenue or what?

    That depends. I personally think the overwhelming majority of business regulations could be dispensed with as unnecessary restrictions on competition.

    But let's say the girls are out there all day, every day, from May 1 to September 15; at some point this makes them an established, ongoing business enterprise.

    Alternatively, the Council could punt on making their own rules, ands say a business in which the proprietor has become subject to the self-employment Ponzi tax (four hundred bucks, I believe) becomes subject to business regulations. Also bullshit.

    But saying, essentially, "We are erecting a defensive ring around the vendors for a specific special event" is the worst sort of flagrant catering to rent-seekers.

  • Warty||

    Hey, look, more pigs being scum.

    When Oakland County Narcotics Enforcement Team raided several businesses and homes in August they confiscated guns, cash, a computer, business records from the safe and filing cabinet, and at least one vibrating dildo out of the one of the victims bedrooms.
  • ||

    Jesus man, Balko punts the nuts from afar.

    I only visit The Agitator when I'm feeling super complacent.

  • Warty||

    He drags me in with the cute puppy pictures, then he knees me straight in the balls with this.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    and at least one vibrating dildo out of the one of the victims bedrooms.

    This seems like a golden opportunity to troll the police. Why was the dildo confiscated? Who has the dildo now? What condition is the dildo? What are the names of the people who had possession of the dildo between the time it was confiscated and the time it was returned to the police station?

    The public should know these things.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Even though the councilman admitted that this was protectionism, there is a rational explanation for this kind of particular regulation - setting an arbitrary geographical distance does create order at these kinds of festivals and such, which local residents will tell you can cause big headaches for them.

    I don't care if they are an "ongoing business enterprise" or if this is a one-day special: "little girls" have to comply with the rules just like everybody else. Whether there should be those rules is where the subject of the discussion should lie, not the kind of appeals to emotion going on around here.

  • ||

    I agree with your main thrust here, though I don't think the geographical limitation is necessary here. You could prevent having the environs of the festival overrun by peddlers by simply banning such activity on public property and enforcing trespassing statutes for private property, leaving no room for external peddlers. You still might have some residents harboring peddlers or peddling themselves, but their activity is limited to their property where festival goers shouldn't be going anyway.

  • ||

    "little girls" have to comply with the rules just like everybody else.

    I used to think, back in the days when "enterprise zones" were all the rage, that they would result in a lot of people scratching their heads and asking, "Wait; if it's good over there, for those guys, why isn't it good for me? Why don't we just scrap all these regulations?"

    Maybe that's why they disappeared from the discussion.

  • ||

    no, "little girls" do NOT have to comply with the rules just like everybody else because in RATIONAL COMMUNITIES the authoritahs can ignore minor violations (pun intended) such as these out of common decency.

  • REAL DUNPHY||

    Common decency = Whatever The Police Decide It Is Depending On The Mood of The Moment

  • ||

    no, i am the real dunphy damnit!

    respect mah authoritah

    and yes, again... the concept is "DE MINIMUS"

    cops should NOT be enforcing business codes against little girls' lemonade stands...

    PER-I-OD

  • ||

    If it makes the resident cops feel any better, I do blame the entire apparatus involved here. Of course that doesn't let you completely off the hook; you're part of it in more ways than one. In addition to being a cop you're also a part of your community. You're still part of the problem.

    And while I will concede that a key source of the problem is people who want the government to solve every little problem for them, let's not forget that the government encourages this attitude (sometimes with "you should leave it to the professionals", sometimes with tasers). Both politicians and cops do have a vested interest in making folks more dependent on them.

  • ||

    i suppose the patrol guys in these neighborhoods could say "screw you, sgt. we're not enforcing this law. do it yourself"

    maybe, in an ironic twist, the police union (a source of evul everywhere(tm)) could organize the line officers in a "boycott" of this law.

    fwiw, i've never enforced any of these such laws since it's the job of code enforcement to deal with shit like business licenses

  • Helpful||

    "Moved by a mindless craving for a constraint-free existence, Libertarians seek to eliminate whatever obstacles stand in the way. In politics, they want anarchism; in ethics, amoralism; in epistemology, subjectivism. Libertarians want no laws preventing them from using force; no morality telling them how to live; no objectivity tying their beliefs to reality. Demonstrating extreme philosophical consistency in this quest, they repudiate anything that restricts their behavior in any manner. Any action taken to remove those restrictions, any protest against existing laws and institutions, any denunciation of moral standards--any attack on values--is cheered as epitomizing Libertarianism."

    Peter Schwartz, Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty, 1985

  • T||

    Y'know, I find that amusing given how many libertarians are moral absolutists based on first principles.

  • robc||

    This.

    Im assuming he was intentionally lying and isnt that dense.

  • ||

    Peter Schwartz is an Objectivist, and indulging in the "more pure than thou" many of them seem to enjoy.

  • T||

    Oh, since we don't worship Rand we're the heathen. Got it.

  • robc||

    I think its worse than that. We arent heathens we are heretics.

    Heretics are always bigger enemies than heathens.

  • robc||

    Libertarians want no laws preventing them from using force

    Wow, Peter Schwartz is clueless isnt he?

  • ||

    He's a proto-H'n'Run troll.

  • Old Mexican||

    Libertarians want no laws preventing them from using force


    The POTUS is a libertarian????

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    There are libertarians who act this way, but that is a result of confusion, in that there are some libertarians who think that NIOF is the Supreme Ethical and Moral Command, rather than just a principle for a people's relationship to its government.

  • Helpful||

    "Libertarianism's relationship to Objectivism is actually not merely that of an antagonist, but that of a parasite. For without Objectivism there would, ironically, be no Libertarian movement today....It is Objectivism that has provided the answers--and Libertarianism that has stolen and mutilated them.

    But what Libertarianism seeks is to appropriate some of the fruits of Objectivism while uprooting the tree. Its anti-conceptual nature makes it consistently desire ends without means--politics without ethics, liberty without values, social change without philosophy. It wishes to feed off the by-products of Objectivism's moral defense of capitalism, while repudiating Objectivism itself. It wants to use the words of Objectivism's non-initiation-of-force principle, but not the ideas that give them meaning.

    Libertarians refuse to accept the fact that Objectivism's non-initiation-of-force principle is only one element in a huge philosophical edifice, and is rendered meaningless and indefensible if detached from that structure. They reject the need for a structure; i.e., for any comprehensive system of thought. And so they resent reality for not allowing them to have their ends while eating their means--and then resent Objectivism for insisting that reality is real."

    Peter Schwartz, Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty, 1985

  • NotSure||

    The libertarian tradition predates objectivism by more than a century, but somehow it owes its existence to objectivism ??????????? So much for the much vaunted clear thinking from the objectivists.

  • Helpful||

    Try to focus. (It's difficult, I know.) The modern Libertarian movement referenced above (as opposed to individuals throughout the ages who have written about liberty in general) does not predate Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Most (honest) Libertarians of note duly credit Rand as an influential force, albeit often grudgingly. Dishonest and/or ignorant Libertarians (the type who hang out here) merely bite the hand that feeds them and are of no consequence. Libertarian guru (but rarely if ever cited here by Reason editors) Murray Rothbard's first mention of the non-initiation-of-force principle comes after Ayn Rand's, which she stated in nonfiction form thus:

    The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force.

    “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 1961, p. 32.

    Of course, Objectivist principles may be found in the form of fiction as early as 1943 (The Fountainhead).

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Peter Schwartz, the Abridged Series: "Libertarians eat babies. Thank you."

  • ||

    Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty

    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

  • ||

    You and your coaxials seem to think that ignoring is strength, so it's not much of a stretch.

  • ||

    I think the crackdown is good. It's creating a new generation of libertarians.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The real Tony would never wish for that, encouraging as it would be.

  • MrDamage||

    I know the feeling. A friend of mine is deeply skeptical of government and all its works. Regrettably, I would prefer she was still the left wing authoritarian spewing politically correct nonsense by rote like she was _before_ DOCS turned her family inside out.

  • Mensan||

    Off topic, but in the there ought to be a law arena:

    I heard an interview with a "Chicago resident" on the radio today regarding the recent heat wave. She said, "It should be illegal for a person to walk outside in this kinda weather."

  • ||

    Damn right. You never know what pestilence and disease lurks around a lemonade stand run by a bunch of little girls in their front yards.

    You're much better off eating something from one of the approved vendors at the Appleton Old Car Show & Swap Meet. Because those vendors are licensed and follow a rigorous application process whereby they mail a check to the city, and so you're guaranteed not to get, say, four days of explosive diarrhea and dry heaves from, say, a hot dog or a slice of pizza there.

    BTW, might want to avoid the popcorn shrimp.

  • asdf||

    It's weird unemployment is so high when it is so easy to create a business and hire people.

  • ||

    We are one day closer today to the second Civil War in this country... it's not a question of it, just when...

  • ||

  • CapelloStagnola||

    A Facebook event has been created to protest this... by setting up your own lemonade stand! Awesome idea... http://www.facebook.com/event......8182454066

  • CapelloStagnola||

    A Facebook event has been created to protest this... by setting up your own lemonade stand! Awesome idea... http://www.facebook.com/event......8182454066

  • ||

    I told you so.

    Government regulation: Lemonade Day done wrong
    http://goo.gl/Og099

  • Edwin||

    the first story s actual government over-reach but the second one is reasonable. The little shits are deliberately trying to siphon off business from real, hard-working businesses. How much do those businesses have to pay to get to sell at those events? Selling lemonade is fine but deliberately doing it right next to an event is really being a kid like Eric Cartmen from South Park.

  • Edwin||

    FYI I'd tell my kids not to be such little assholes, too

    sell lemonade on any normal day, but don't try to pawn off business in the middle of an event just because you're a "cute little kid"

  • ||

    @ Edwin's comments (& some others):
    Since this story is about children, I would expect the adult posters to bear that in mind.

    Have you considered that the kids themselves might be reading the comments with their parents? (hopefully, at nine yrs. of age not unsupervised) What are you teaching these kids with such crudeness?

    Have you no self-awareness, self-discipline, self-respect? How am we to see you?

    You are not really a bad person I am telling myself, after all, you can be used as a great example of one who does not respect social conventions of mutual respect, etiquette, etc.

  • Paul R.||

    legalize weed and lemonade

  • Buy Cheap Franklin & Marshall ||

    This season, Buy Cheap Franklin & Marshall Marshall bring a host of new looks in casual collegiate tees. Vivid dyes, great color combinations and no shortage of that distressed look that's so popular these days, this design label no doubt has the winning formula. We like the gold graphics on the deep blue tees.

  • Jason T||

    It seems to me that the city is just trying to protect its own self interest which is understanble. What I don't understand is why people don't go to every city council meeting and band together and let them know how idiotic their regs are. I mean come on people. I think we are all a little too involved with ourselves to do anything other than b*(&^% about it.

  • scarpe Nike Store||

    is good

  • El Tri Market||

    This is really unbelievable, young girls should not be stopped from selling lemonades. This is already an American tradition

  • Danmark||

    Like all of you when I heard the original lineup had reunited for "Astronaut" I was thrilled.
    Not quite so thrilled when I heard the disc.
    Granted "Astronaut" had some great moments but that was not the comeback I was hoping for.
    I skipped "Red Carpet" all together due to the reviews from fans and critics.
    Then without even realizing DD was coming out with something new, this caught my attention on our local newspaper.
    Not quite the hippest place to find out about a new DD album but that's it.

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