Cheeseburger with Fries (and a Permit)

|

Why would anyone need a permit to cook a meal in their own home? Dinner parties, held in private residences, that charge their guests for eating, could become illegal in many cities in the U.S. 

This multi-part video series about the "sharing economy" shows how dinner party services are coping with challenges posed by city regulators and the mainstream media.

Originally Published on May 13, 2014

Ai is a master chef, and about twice a week, she and her boyfriend, Matt, host a group of strangers at their home in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, to enjoy a gourmet Japanese meal. Their guests find them through a website called EatWith, which makes it possible for diners to book a reservation, not in a restaurant, but in the home of a chef. Each guests pays Ai and Matt a fee of $41, and EatWith takes a 15 percent cut.

EatWith, which is now in 30 countries, won't divulge its sales numbers, but the company says it has thousands of open applications from potential hosts and that its volume is rapidly expanding.

"When you come to a dining experience with EatWith, there's an element to the social and human experience that you're not going to get anywhere else," says Hila Katz, EatWith's New York City community manager. "Around a table sit strangers and friends together, great food, a glass of wine, and good conversation, magical things are going to happen."

But if these home restaurants become more common, the city may start issuing fines that would force hosts like Matt and Ai out of business. New York City Department of Health Spokesperson Veronica Lewin told Bloomberg Businessweek, "People who offer meals to the public for money…need permits…The city does not allow meals to be served to members of the public in someone's home."

"If you're [hosting dinners] every day there should be some sort of regulation, because you're closer to becoming a restaurant," says EatWith's co-founder and CEO Guy Michlin.

But why should the government have any say over what people eat—or charge for—in the privacy of their own dining rooms? Unlike at a restaurant, EatWith guests get to socialize with the person cooking their meal, and the kitchen is often wide open for everyone to see how the food is being handled and prepared.

"The sharing economy is changing paradigms," says Katz. "I have no doubt that there's a real hunger for more human interactions, and it's those real connecting experiences that will linger with a guest for much longer after the dinner is ended.

About 3:40 minutes.

Written, shot, and produced by Jim Epstein.

NEXT: Ohio to "Dramatically Reduce" Solitary Confinement for Young Inmates

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.

  1. Please don’t use the meaningless term ‘sharing economy’.

    1. I prefer the epithet hurled by mayors, city councilmen,municipal bureaucrats,crony capitalist established competitors and state legislators:

      COMMERCIAL ANARCHY

    2. For real. This is not a “sharing economy” it is a “black market economy” Just call them what they are: black market restaurants. Congratulations America.

      1. I invite people to my house and have a big dinner party. They pay me no compensation.
        Regulate: No

        I invite people to my house and have a big dinner party. They pay me $20 each to compensate me for the cost of the food.
        Regulate: No.

        I invite people to my house and have a big dinner party. They pay me $40 each to compensate me for the cost of the food and for my time and labor.
        Regulate: Yes. Profit! E coli! Salmonella! Evil!

      2. Or how about the “freely trading the product of my talents with consenting others economy”?

    3. WARNING

      Tulpa and Bo shit on this thread too. Go do something better with your time.

      1. It’s nice that we have a poster who only shows up to introduce me. Sort of like Ed McMahon to my Johnny Carson.

        Either that or it’s an extremely hypocritical regular using an alternate name.

        1. .

        2. Don’t you think it kinda sad that you seem to revel in this attention? Isn’t there anywhere you can turn for something better?

          1. Isn’t there anywhere you can turn for something better?

            Unfortunately I haven’t been able to get rid of my refractory period yet.

        3. Wait – you always denied that you were Tulpa.

          I CAN’T BELIEVE YOU LIED. I IS CRUSHED.

      2. I posted like, what, 10 times on this behemoth of a thread, so this comment really has some non-thinking reflex behind it.

  2. OT, but shit: 3 corpses pulled from Santa Barbara shooter’s apartment complex

    The Santa Barbara County Coroner’s team has established a crime scene at the apartment complex where suspected shooter Elliot Rodger claimed he lived, prior to Friday’s mass murders in Isla Vista.

    NewsChannel 3 witnessed forensics experts removing three bodies from the Capri apartment complex on the 6500 block of Seville Road Saturday afternoon.

    There is no confirmation from authorities whether this latest discovery increases the number of people killed, which stands at seven, including the gunman.

    The timing is significant based on a more than one hundred page manifesto Rodger allegedly published hours before the killings.

    “On the day before the Day of Retribution, I will start the First Phase of my vengeance: Silently killing as many people as I can around Isla Vista by luring them into my apartment through some form of trickery.”

    Sheriff Bill Brown will give an update on the investigation during a 5:00 p.m. news conference from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Headquarters.

    1. But, there can’t be shootings in CA…

      Don’t they have a preponderance of gun laws there?

      1. And of course there can’t be shootings in Europe where the laws are even tighter.

        http://www.slate.com/blogs/the…..three.html

      2. The local media seems awfully preoccupied with reporting that he used (in addition to his BMW) a **gasp** semi-automatic handgun.

        You know, as opposed to a less deadly and more civilized revolver? And from what I gathered from quick research the Santa Barbara County sheriff is pretty stingy with issuing CCW permits.

    2. Goddamnit, what a maniac. And this is all because he couldn’t get laid? And he’s possibly the son of a Hollywood director? Getting a prostitute shouldn’t be all that difficult for you, Elliot. And, y’know, at 22, you still had a hell of a lot of life to live and enjoy carnal pleasures.

      Of course I guess he was just a fucking lunatic. It’s not like reason would make a difference.

      1. Exactly. He drove a BMW for crying out loud and had his own place. It appears he was a spoiled narcissist with zero social skills and a deep resentment of women and so-called ‘alphas’.

        1. Sounds like your typical PUA. Did he say anything about hamsters?

          1. In a way, shooting a girl in the face is really just an extreme sort of negging.

            1. It’s like an extra hard “Gibbs slap”. Made of lead.

              1. Just make sure you’re aim is good enough to make it a flesh wound and then you’re good. Especially if she’s too maimed for someone else to want after, amirite?

                1. Just make sure you’re aim is good enough to make it a flesh wound and then you’re good.

                  You’re lucky you look better than you spell, Nicole, otherwise I wouldn’t be so goddamn attracted to you.

                  How much do you want to sleep with me after that epic negging?

                  1. You have to try again with something I’m secretly insecure about. Like, not autocorrect.

                2. Too soon, Nikki…

          2. No joke, he posted regularly on PUA boards, which are really just gathering grounds for (oxymoron) failed pick-up artists to bitch about how women are manipulators and feminism is the cause of their inability to get laid.

            Based on his videos there is just no way he could hit on a woman without coming off as a total creep, despite being more than decent looking and having money.

            1. Remember, Serious, if women don’t seem to like you, it’s their fault.

  3. They want their cut of course, it isn’t about ‘safety’.

    1. To be fair, SWAT raids are terribly unsafe, and paying for the permit reduces their frequency.

  4. I wonder if we removed every law in America that is based on protectionism or prior restraint how much law we actually would have left.

    1. Less but still too much.

  5. ‘Sharing economy’ is a term upper middle class progressives use so they can pretend they aren’t running black market capitalist businesses.

    ‘I don’t like to prostitute myself for something as gauche and bourgeoisie as money, so I take part in the sharing economy (for which I expect to be paid. I mean, I’m not a fucking savage.)’

    1. “… black market capitalist businesses…”

      Or, as my grandfather would have unhesitantly called it, ‘participating in the free market’.

      1. It’s not a free market if it’s a black market. Black markets lose money and waste time running away from regulators and keeping their heads down. That’s not free.

        Who’s freer, a bootlegger who has to dump his booze on the highway when he’s running from the cops or a liquor store owner who can legally hang out, advertise, and have customers come to him?

        1. I am gonna go with the bootlegger who makes all of his own decisions and bears the consequences of them over the liquor store owner whose every move and every penny is beholden to the mafia and the state regulators.

          Sorry.

          1. Of course if caught the bootlegger will really have every move and every penny beholden to the same being in prison and with his assets forfeited.

            Have to go with Irish on this one.

          2. I am gonna go with the bootlegger who makes all of his own decisions and bears the consequences of them over the liquor store owner whose every move and every penny is beholden to the mafia and the state regulators.

            If this were true, then why on Earth would anyone choose to run a legal liquor store? The fact that people would rather run a legal business so that they don’t have to compete in the underworld is pretty much proof of what I’m arguing.

            1. Prefer is the keyword. People prefer what gives them the least trouble. But as long as government regulation continues to pile up, there will be more and more people willing to risk it in the black market. If we had a truly free market, then a black market would be unnecessary. It exists because people demand services or wish to deliver services, but something is hindering their natural progress.

            2. You are right. We are quibbling over semantics. The black market is not free, thus a separate name.

              The black market mimics a free market in every way save the hounding of state agents. It is so fraught with risk that most prefer to avoid it.

              1. To make my point more clearly and in furtherance of yours ( Irish ) :

                The black market and the free market have different names because they are different things. The Progs just invented a new name, sharing economy, something which is identical to the free market, in order to delude themselves into believing they are not engaging in the free market. They do this because they think the free market, which is something other than what they believe it is, is evil. They think inventing a new name makes something not what it is.

                Goddamn it is hard to concentrate here. The grand kid is screaming, the dogs are running amok and the tv is blaring a commercial for ‘Blood Lake; Attack of the Killer Lampreys’.

                1. The Progs just invented a new name, sharing economy, something which is identical to the free market, in order to delude themselves into believing they are not engaging in the free market. They do this because they think the free market, which is something other than what they believe it is, is evil. They think inventing a new name makes something not what it is.

                  Let em run with it.

                2. They’re fine with free markets. It’s when people make money in free markets that’s bad, because that causes inequality. Then we need to use taxes and mandates to equal that out.

                  1. Oh no. It’s free markets for them, but not for anyone else.

                    Everyone gets regulated into oblivion, while they have their off the books nannies and gardeners.

            3. Exactly. I’d rather deal with the bullshit of regulations than risk having my supplies hijacked by a rival gang.

              You don’t see the Miller Crew shooting up a convoy of boozed intended for the Budweiser Gang.

        2. Neither, at least in this case. With a shitload of regulations, nothing is a free market. But somebody in the black market is at least a little more free.

        3. A black market is a more free market than one regulated heavily by the state.

          1. Except in a black market you have no actual property rights.

            This is why I differ from the anarchists on this site (trigger warning, likely to cause a long winded discussion about anarchy.) You need some sort of power to insure the property rights of individuals are protected.

            In a black market, I can be robbed and there is no legal or judicial recourse because what I was doing was illegal. Moreover, black markets tend to breed violence. Admittedly, I doubt you’ll ever see shootouts between black market restaurants, but the point still stands. If a black market is violent and there is no way to protect property rights, then you really aren’t free. You’re just having your rights infringed on by a non-government agent, which is just as much of an infringement as when the government does it.

            1. All eventual recourses are force. Just because you outsource that to the head gang in charge when you have a government doesn’t change the fact that the final recourse is force.

              1. Force that you and everyone else has an equal say in and which has agreed to follow certain more or less predictable rules is preferable to some equivalent to a range war.

                1. Force that you and everyone else has an equal say in

                  LOL.

                  1. .

                  2. Speak of the devil.

                    1. .

                    2. Wow, you created an entirely separate handle just for that? That’s some strong upset there.

                    3. .

                    4. Upset crossing into obsession now friend.

                    5. .

                    6. I’m not your guy, buddy.

                    7. So Bo, you think that you can call up your local mayor or county executive and state your opposition to some local policy or regulation, and he or she will give it equal weight to, say, a big campaign contributor’s opinion on the same matter?

                    8. .

                    9. fuck you tulpa

                      You are infinitely more annoying and childish than Tulpa.

                    10. I said back when he was outed with the Rollo thing that it is just bizarre to create other handles with backstories just to play devil’s advocate. Why not just say ‘well, I think the other side might have a point about X?’

                      But imagine the mental illness one must have to create a different handle for each ad hom post. I mean, don’t you have to create a new email for each? That’s like paranoid obsessive with a touch of tourette’s.

                    11. I don’t make any ad hom posts under any name so you must be talking about someone else.

                      But, if you’re as smart as you think you are, you can figure out pretty quick how to change names without changing email addresses.

                    12. Why not just say ‘well, I think the other side might have a point about X?’

                      And the Tea Party could have opposed Super ObamaCare (ie with the public option etc.) by citing actuarial statistics, rather than talking about death panels and federally funded abortions and seniors losing Medicare. The logical content would have been clearer and more justifiable, but you need to engage people’s visceral reaction to really make an impact. Hypotheticals about what someone might say are very different from someone actually saying it.

                    13. So, wait, you think the person hounding tulpa’s stupid fucking sockpuppets is… actually tulpa?

                      do you no realize ho trivially easy it is for me to change the tulpa to bo?

                      Are you actually fucking retarded?

                      LOLOLOLOLOL your stupid moron ass thinks I’m TULPA!

                    14. Why am I not surprised that you did not get that my comment was about how while Tulpa’s behavior is bizarre, yours is certifiable.?

                    15. So you’re actually retarded then.

                    16. You are infinitely more annoying and childish than Tulpa.

                      Unpossible.

                    17. I just assume anyone defending him is him.

                    18. Paranoid delusions, yes. And Jordan was not defending Tulpa/Rollo/Hydra, he was criticizing you. Do you assume anyone criticizing you is Tulpa? Because that’s a bit crazy in itself.

                    19. Yup, you’re definitely retarded.

                    20. You are infinitely more annoying and childish than Tulpa.

                      1st tulpa’s in this thread, and that sounds like something his sockpuppet would say

                      2nd, stop. you’re wasting your fucking time, don’t bother.

                    21. I think I have a better chance with my mayor than some warlord, and in the end my vote will count the same as the big campaign contributor’s.

                    22. The point is the campaign contributor has something more valuable than a vote to offer/threaten the loss of. He or she has money which can be used to sway many more votes, and depending on how crooked the mayor is, can be diverted to family members for laundering.

                      So to put it in the terms you used before, you DON’T have an equal say in anything.

                    23. Well, by that logic if I am more persuasive than you and more charismatic I have more say than you.

                    24. Well, by that logic if I am more persuasive than you and more charismatic I have more say than you.

                    25. Well, by that logic if I am more persuasive than you and more charismatic I have more say than you.

                    26. Oops…let’s try again:

                      Well, by that logic if I am more persuasive than you and more charismatic I have more say than you.

                      You kind of do. Everyone has faults and strengths which give them advantages and disadvantages over other people.

                      That’s why trying to ‘get money out of politics’ is idiotic. All that would do is give far more power to people who own media companies because people with money wouldn’t be able to counter the current media narrative.

                    27. Sure, when I said equal say I just meant ‘politically equal’ in the sense the Founders meant in the Declaration. I guess I could have been more clear about that, but I assumed most people would realize that there’s a whole Harrison Bergeron list of things that would have to be done to make everyone literally equal in the broad sense Tulpa/Rollo/Hydra is talking about.

            2. I hate to be all triggered by this but, I would definitely argue that your property rights are at best severely abrogated by the state in general and economic regulations in particular, so your first line is at least not the best phrasing, I think.

              1. I hate to be all triggered by this but, I would definitely argue that your property rights are at best severely abrogated by the state in general and economic regulations in particular, so your first line is at least not the best phrasing, I think.

                I agree. But it does not follow that you’d have more rights in a stateless society since your rights would be abrogated to an even larger degree if you were forced to try and do business under the auspices of constantly changing warlords who all have different ideas of what you should be allowed to do.

                One of the benefits of the rule of law is that, although the government is still shitty, you can at least predict what the rules are and will be in the future. Of course, our government is now so powerful that this is becoming less and less true because so many rules are now made up on the fly by bureaucrats, but a government that is less of a behemoth is certainly preferable to anarchy.

                At a certain point I’d rather be an anarchic society than an authoritarian one, but I don’t think even the leviathan of the federal government has brought us to that point yet.

                1. Well, I’d argue that your “rights” are the same regardless, it’s just a matter of how badly they’re being infringed and by whom. That’s all.

                  1. Well, I’d argue that your “rights” are the same regardless, it’s just a matter of how badly they’re being infringed and by whom. That’s all.

                    I should have said ‘better protected rights’ since I agree with this.

                    1. This sparkles with the girls!

                    2. This sparkles with the girls!

                      So you just rewatched that episode too. Can’t you do anything original?

                    3. I haven’t seen it in years actually. If you must know, I’m re-watching Murder on the Orient Express.

                    4. Agatha Christie? You really are the worst.

                      (I’ve read pretty much all her books)

                2. “… I don’t think even the leviathan of the federal government has brought us to that point yet.”

                  Not for the lack of trying.

            3. “Trigger warning” is another phrase that needs to go away, as soon as I get tired of using it sarcastically, of course.

            4. To Irish’s original comment: There is no state-based recourse. There can still be reliable and effective processes within the “black market” to recover your property or enforce a contract.

              That said, of course black markets are different and worse than free markets. But it doesn’t really have anything to do with libertarian anarchy, which does assume power(s) that insure protection of property.

    2. Sharing = good, profit = bad.

      That’s the only reason they can’t speak the market which dare not say it’s name.

    3. They call call it whatever they want. As long as I’m paid, and their money is green. =)

  6. “If you’re [hosting dinners] every day there should be some sort of regulation, because you’re closer to becoming a restaurant,” says EatWith’s co-founder and CEO Guy Michlin.

    If I host dinners every day but don’t get paid, should I be regulated? I mean, think about how much bacteria might be on all that food if it isn’t regulated by the government.

    We can’t have libertarian anarchy in what I like to call the ‘unpaid restaurant business.’

    I like that progressives think that the minute money changes hands you need to be regulated. So if I’m not getting paid to host dinner, and I do so every day, there’s no need for regulation. But if I get paid to host a dinner, serve the same food, prepare it the same way, and invite the same people, all of the sudden my kitchen becomes a dangerous hot bed of E. Coli and roaches are crawling everywhere.

    1. This is well worth the few minutes it takes to watch. Derpetologist posted this link and it is pure fucking gold.

      It explains a lot about all the doublethink, cognitive dissonance and code language of proggys.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc

      Unfortunately it also indicates that we are wasting our breath talking to them or trying to win them to our side.

      1. The KGB guys says lefties are gullible, that is, they thought the USSR was actually a good place, and will have to be shot or locked up when they realize the truth, because when that happens they’ll be opponents of the Soviets.

        So it’s a matter of education, not a matter of eye-rolling dismissal.

        1. Consider how Solzhenitzyn’s (sp?) work turned many French intellectuals against the Soviets – not an easy task, but it happened.

          1. “Consider how Solzhenitzyn’s (sp?) work turned many French intellectuals against the Soviets”
            Cite?

            1. Anne Applebaum wrote an interesting piece about Solzhenitsyn’s legacy when he died 6 years ago

              Though it was based on “reports, memoirs and letters by 227 witnesses,” the book was not quite a straight history — obviously, Solzhenitsyn did not have access to then-secret archives — but, rather, an interpretation of history. Partly polemical, partly autobiographical, both emotional and judgmental, it aimed to show that, contrary to what many believed, the mass arrests and concentration camps were not an incidental phenomenon but an essential part of the Soviet system — and had been from the very beginning.

              Not all of this was new: Credible witnesses had reported on the growth of the Gulag and the spread of terror since the Russian Revolution. But what Solzhenitsyn produced was simply more thorough, more monumental and more detailed than anything that had preceded it. His account could not be dismissed as a single man’s experience. No one who dealt with the Soviet Union, diplomatically or intellectually, could ignore it.

              So threatening was the book to certain branches of the European left that Jean-Paul Sartre himself described Solzhenitsyn as a “dangerous element.” Its publication certainly contributed to the recognition of “human rights” as a legitimate element of international debate and foreign policy.

            2. “Some even claim that it was the publication of the work in French in 1974 that ultimately destroyed the Marxist consensus that had dominated French intellectual circles for decades.”

              http://c2cjournal.ca/2009/06/s…..servatism/

              Somewhat more cautious:

              “”The cooling of their love affair with revolution by many French intellectuals was a signal development in the late 20th century French public life. Michael Christofferson’s fresh study, based on an immense and scrupulously handled research base, finds that the impact of Solzenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago (1974) was only the last step in a developing French critique of Marxist totalitarianism going back to the 1950s. This is essential reading for understanding the French left of today.” ? Robert O. Paxton, Columbia University”

              http://www.berghahnbooks.com/t…..rsonFrench

              1. “The French are able to switch. I made a film in the ’70s called Solzhenitsyn’s Children ? which was actually on PBS, by the way ? and it was about the French Left, about all the intellectuals who had been rampant Marxists. Then, they read Solzhenitsyn and they all did a 180-degree switch. Not just privately, but very publicly. People like Bernard-Henri Levy, Andre Glucksmann, all staged a public mea culpa. Why? I guess France is like that, more volatile, and also they profited mightily from their change by writing instant best-sellers on their new position and becoming the darlings of the press, probably getting more attention than they had ever had as Marxists.

                ? Michael Rubbo, 2003”

                http://sensesofcinema.com/2005…..hildren/#1

                1. In other words, French intellectuals became Marxists without thinking and then became anti-Marxists without thinking.

                  The fact that they changed their minds that quickly based on one book is a pretty good indicator that they’re just idiots who are easily manipulated into believing what is popular this week.

                  1. French intellectuals aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer, but at least they backed off when reality smacked them upside the head.

        2. Yes, but he also says that once the process of education is done it is irreversible, that is why they have to be shot instead of re-educated.

          We can talk until we fall over and pass out, they will still insist that heavy regulation and taxes stimulate the economy. And fairness.

          1. I still don’t like the idea of writing people off as not worth talking to. In fact, I don’t think that promotes true freedom. You don’t have to agree with their agenda to presume their good motives and try and talk to them, if only on specific issues.

            I’m just saying the same about progs that I’ve been saying about SoCons. You can’t assume they have no good ideas or are unpersuadable by good ideas.

            1. You are a better man than I.

              1. Not by choice – I’m surrounded by them.

            2. The problem with many progressives today is that even on the issues where they may agree with us at some initial point, they soon want to change things by adding some positive rights. Gay marriage? OK, but then they want anti-discrimination laws. Pro-choice? Sure, but then they want government funding for it. Drug legalization? OK, but let’s send that WOD funding over to treatment centers.

              I mean, when was the last time the Democrats opposed ANY spending bill? Any?

              1. I wrote a long and tedious comment to this effect. Yeah, both have some good ideas but none of them are new. It is when they begin implementing those good ideas that things turn to shit. They always use it as a pretense for more more more more control.

                Then I erased it all and just went with ‘You are a better man than I.’.

                Fuckem both. I don’t need them to have access to those ideas.

              2. I mean, when was the last time the Democrats opposed ANY spending bill? Any?

                I suspect that has more to do with the US’s unprecedented financial position than anything inherent to the democrats ideology. And the same could be said of republicans – when have they ever cut spending (yes they oppose certain democrat priorities but always with an eye to increasing their own).

      2. Also, if you listen to his description of ‘useful idiots’ it explains why the crazy shootings ( like the one Serious Man posted above) and bizarre behavior often come from Progressive strongholds.

        “..people, even with an abundance of information, are unable to come to sensible conclusions…”

        Mix fucked up logic for everyone with the normal rate of mental illness in a population and you will get an inordinate number of mass shootings.

        1. The same can be said of people on the right that have internalized anti-drug propaganda or constitution idolatry or America uber alles nationalism.

      3. Bezmenov only gave this interview to a Bircher. He never AFAIK talked with any other media – not even something like National Review.

        If I wanted to run a game that gave credence to the least credible critics, I couldn’t plan one much better.

    2. Well said. It can’t be the given health rationale, your example explodes that. It’s the filthy lucre!

    3. I like that progressives think that the minute money changes hands you need to be regulated.

      What if the host is paid in BJs?

      1. That’s not a business, it’s paradise.

        1. Have I ever told you my Julia Child story?

          1. Christ, MJG, you summoned it.

          2. yeah back when you were tulpa

    4. I think it’s pretty funny how people think all of that regulation actually benefits them. I’ve seen restaurants with an A rating with health inspectors, but they have roaches and other bugs crawling around.

    5. I like that progressives think that the minute money changes hands you need to be regulated. So if I’m not getting paid to host dinner, and I do so every day, there’s no need for regulation. But if I get paid to host a dinner, serve the same food, prepare it the same way, and invite the same people, all of the sudden my kitchen becomes a dangerous hot bed of E. Coli and roaches are crawling everywhere.

      Of course nobody believes that, but it’s an expedient dividing line. People would not stand for being regulated like that in their homes, and the situation is far too diffuse to ever enforce such regs (too many people doing it). However, they will stand for having the far fewer people doing it commercially regulated. Practically everybody wants stricter regulation for businesses than for non-commercial activity, for pretty much the same reasons. And you ask them, they’ll say of course the professional should be more strictly regulated than the amateur, because that’s part of what “professional” means, and why we trust professionals to do a better job than amateurs.

      1. Which side steps the question of why money changing hands is their rubicon.

        1. No, it doesn’t. The vast majority can escape regul’n by not doing it for payment. The few who do it for money are few enough not to put up too big a fuss to get the regs repealed, and, besides, most people want pros regulated & ams unregulated, because the pros are thought to have voluntariy put themselves in for the fuss and are making money and are thought to be of higher quality.

  7. I think that if I am paying money and a third party is taking a cut then the transaction is something other than “sharing”.

  8. Prediction: in the next several months, we get a story about how conversation with the guests is uncomfortable, and the host is very upset that the guests didn’t take hints, or talked about stuff they didn’t want to.

    Followed by a slate story on how the hosts are exploited because they don’t feel they can kick out the guests early, therefore, need to be regulated.

  9. How long until Tulpa shows up? This seems like a perfect topic for him to do his thing. They’re not just cooking food in their own home, they’re serving the public and being paid for it! Licensing them the same way the state licenses restaurants is just common sense!

    1. Tulpa doesn’t post here. Only Hydra. And Rollo. Tulpa is very adamant about that.

      1. We have to judge every argument on its merits as presented in a vacuum. Because constant bad faith argumentation is not a predictor of future bad faith argumentation. [snerk]

        Tulpa is what happens when you cheat your creditors in a reputation economy.

        1. I thought Tulpa was what happens when you have an extra chromosome.

        2. I’ll happily let an impartial observer compare my behavior on this blog to yours and submit to their judgement.

          You’ve done every bit of turpitude I’m accused of and then some.

        3. Tulpa is what happens when you cheat your creditors in a reputation economy.

          Very good

          1. Nicole is what happens when you are the worst.

            1. Also correct.

          2. Very cute Nikki. Your judgement of character is almost as reliable as your ability to reason about questions of consent.

            1. .

            2. She’s got your number, scumfuck, so she seems to be batting 1000.

            3. Oh I’m so embarrassed you’re aware of an argument I’ve engaged in repeatedly, for years, and…with you!

        4. You don’t have any reputation to give, SF, on credit or otherwise.

          1. .

          2. It’s self-evident that you’re wrong about that, and/or don’t understand the term “reputation economy.”

            1. Self-evidentness, the last refuge of those unable to form an argument for their position.

              Let me give you a history lesson that I shouldn’t have to since you’ve been around a while: SF and Epi and tarran etc have been calling me every name in the book for 3-4 years now. The Rollo business had nothing to do with it, it’s just a convenient new club they can beat me with right now.

              Sort of like how the Dems suddenly chilled on the Iraq War on 1/20/2009, they’ll all chill out on the subject of using aliases and making technically false statements when they do it (as they do all the time). There is no TEAM as rabid as TEAM WE’RE NOT ON A TEAM.

              1. .

              2. The Rollo business had nothing to do with it, it’s just a convenient new club they can beat me with right now.

                “The Rollo business” proves that you are a lying piece of shit who gets his rocks off by fucking with people.

                LEAVE you lying cunt. Have a single shred of dignity and just fucking leave.

              3. I’m saying its self-evident because whose judgments seem to be more in control of the H&R reputation economy, SF’s or yours?

                1. I would like to think that members of the commentariat make those judgements for themselves (you know, the whole libertarianism/individualism “free minds” thing), but I think you might be right as far as H+R goes. But H+R isn’t representative of the real world, a skew made all the worse by the tendencies of SF/Epi types jumping all over anyone who shows up and disagrees, ensuring the chamber gets more and more echoey as time goes on.

                  1. .

                  2. Okay, but I’m pretty sure the reputation economy in question IS this board.

                    1. If that’s the case I see no shame in being a failure in the H+R rep econ. Let’s see how you or any other libertarian/anarchist here does in the DailyKos reputation economy. Might wipe some of the vox populi smugness off your persona.

                    2. .

              4. The Rollo business had nothing to do with it, it’s just a convenient new club they can beat me with right now.

                You create fake new handles just to start arguments with people. Stop pretending you’re just here to argue rationally and debate when you’re using idiotic troll tactics in order to stir shit up.

                Let me give you a history lesson that I shouldn’t have to since you’ve been around a while: SF and Epi and tarran etc have been calling me every name in the book for 3-4 years now.

                Three thoughts:

                1. I didn’t have a problem with you when I started posting here and actually thought people were being unnecessarily mean to you. Then, over time, I began to see why. Arguing with you is like undergoing fucking water torture.

                2. I still don’t have that much of a problem with Bo and thinks he gets more shit than he deserves, so don’t try to act like I just grew to dislike you after being inducted into the hive mind. You’re the only person I started off thinking was alright and grew to dislike.

                3. Whining that you get insulted on an internet forum is pretty adolescent for a massive intellect like yours.

                1. 1. I’m sorry you feel that way… any specifics on this?

                  2. I really don’t care one way or the other about Bo. He/she can be annoying but I agree there’s no justification for the stuff SF/Epi/tarran etc. say about Bo. And you tolerate what they do, by the way, so don’t pretend you’re above the fray.

                  3. I wasn’t whining about it, I was pointing to a fact. It’s long been clear that most of the commentariat, including you, is tolerant of their antisocial behavior. A fact you’re ignoring here — the stuff they’re doing is NOT in response to the Rollo incident as they try to say it is.

                  1. .

                  2. I can’t remember the exact arguments you made that first began to annoy me or the exact specifics of the trollish behavior, but let me give you a recent example.

                    In some random thread, someone said ‘kill yourself’ when you were being annoying. You then went off on a bizarre rant about how we’d all better hope no prosecutor sees our internet postings because he’d use them to throw us in jail.

                    It was completely tangential and unrelated to the topic, thus being really annoying because you derailed the thread and sent it into an abyss of sophistry and whining.

                    Also, your old handle is, to my knowledge, still active. Why do you make up fake handles to screw with people? Can you not understand how annoying that is?

                    I didn’t even realize it was you when we had that dumbass argument about people being jailed for internet posts. When you’ve been posting somewhere for years, it’s impolite and aggravating when you create false identities and sockpuppets in order to play some idiotic and incredibly annoying game of devil’s advocate.

                    1. In some random thread, someone said ‘kill yourself’ when you were being annoying. You then went off on a bizarre rant about how we’d all better hope no prosecutor sees our internet postings because he’d use them to throw us in jail.

                      This is a very inaccurate summary of what happened, and it was what, last week?

                      It’s a recurring theme here — I post something people disagree with/don’t like, then they warp it inside their own minds into something horrid or stupid. Then I correct them on it and I get called a whiner or nitpicker for doing so; and a day later they’ve forgotten the correction and are back to believing the misrepresented version. And it’s not just me it happens with, it’s anyone who comes here and doesn’t toe the line. Textbook echo chamber dynamics. Name a single non-libertarian commenter here who doesn’t get treated like shit.

                    2. Name a single non-libertarian commenter here who doesn’t get treated like shit.

                      John and me?

                    3. John gets treated like shit too when he veers from the party line.

                      I didn’t realize you were non-libertarian — which positions have you significantly disagreed with Reason on?

                    4. I didn’t realize you were non-libertarian — which positions have you significantly disagreed with Reason on?

                      I self-categorize as a classical liberal. I disagree with the entire project of attempting an all-encompassing ideology for politics or society based on NAP or “self-ownership” (the two more popular bases for such among libertarians, near as I can tell) and allow for more consequentialism in my personal outlook. Near as I can tell, the libertarian contribution to politics is interesting as a thought experiment but unnecessary and in some cases impedes a return to classically liberal politics through its rigidity. It is at its least appealing as a ‘complete’ system of ethics, and is quite often self-contradictory. It suffers from having the same types of insufferable supporters as Marxism: those convinced that the world can and should be distilled into one comprehensive philosophy which is necessary and sufficient for all exigencies.

                      As far as positions go, I disagree with Reason and its commenters on immigration, foreign policy, environmentalism, abortion and (to some degree) animal cruelty/animal rights laws, and genuine public goods such as roads. I believe some economic regulations are an appropriate substitute for court action and that non-economic regulation at the local level can also be appropriate. I also have a slight preference for a very small welfare state of the sort generally rejected by libertarians.

                    5. Other than immigration and abortion, where you have plenty of company, those are pretty minor disagreements. Not a putdown at all, just distinguishing from my situation w.r.t. police conduct, red light cameras, jury nullification, food trucks, etc, where I state my opinion and immediately our social butterflies Epi/SF/etc are telling me I’m a statist authoritarian who sucks the cock of whatever group H+R is currently hating on.

                      I know the immigration stuff can get bad too; I’ve been called a racist and a xenophobe by regular commenters (including, ironically, the 4th alias incarnation of Ayn_Randian, commenter in good standing in our reputation economy) with no basis many times. Have you gotten that? Did you respond?

                    6. As far as positions go, I disagree with Reason and its commenters on immigration, foreign policy, environmentalism, abortion and (to some degree) animal cruelty/animal rights laws, and genuine public goods such as roads.

                      Abortion and immigration are really controversial subjects here, so I don’t think that whichever position you take you can really say you disagree with the commenters. There are commenters on both sides.

                      As for roads and such, I think the government needs to build roads because a road either exists in some place or it doesn’t. As such, you can’t have ‘competition’ when it comes to privately owned roads, and competition is necessary for a free market.

                      I’d argue that any time competition is legitimately impossible, having the government run something is reasonable.

                      As a result, I don’t really think you disagree with all the commenters here on abortion, immigration, or public goods for which competition is impossible.

                    7. John gets hit hard and he hits hard back and we’re virtually all still “friends” with him.

                    8. John gets hit hard and he hits hard back and we’re virtually all still “friends” with him.

                      That might have something to do with the fact that John isn’t a lying shitbag.

                      Having differing opinions is fine. Mendacity is unforgivable.

                    9. You weren’t forgiving toward me before the Rollo incident either. So forgive me for not taking seriously your pomposity about “mendacity”.

                    10. That’s simply because your insincerity was obvious well before the incident. It just wasn’t provable.

                      You were always disingenuous. And then you proved everyone’s suspicions.

                    11. I can’t remember the exact arguments you made that first began to annoy me…

                      I can, it was his mindlessly defending thuggish action by cops.

                2. Tulpy-Poo is too autistic to understand the power of reputation.

                  1. you’ll notice he’s given up on pretending he’s not tulpa, and expects no one to notice

                    1. This.

                      Lying shitbag is outed as a fucking liar again.

                  2. I find it interesting that not only do you diagnose me with a dev disorder, you then attempt to use it as an insult.

                    So you’re either libeling me or picking on someone with a congenital disability. Take your pick. And the fuckers in the rest of the commentariat who tolerate you and SF can go eat shit as well.

                    1. .

                    2. Two things can be true:

                      1) H&R, like most other places dedicated to politics, has an echo chamber effect amplifying the popularity of certain ideas and short-circuiting critical thinking about others.

                      2) You (Tulpa) are an annoying, condescending shit. Like Irish said, I was inclined to look favorably on you as you appear to be able to think critically and have an education in a subject related to (and more rigorous than) my own, mathematics. Your behavior changed my opinion of you, precisely because you cannot interact with people in good faith. It doesn’t help that you’re thin-skinned, either. None of that invalidates any arguments you make, but it does make it incredibly difficult to put up with you.

                    3. You know, I would take #2 seriously there, but for the fact that I see other people treated similarly (eg Bo) when they stray from the party line; my most vociferous critics’ petulant and antisocial behavior (SF/Epi) and totally cracked logic (Nikki) in yesterday’s abortion thread pretty much erased any concerns that their criticisms were legit. Sorry if that makes me condescending but WTF am I supposed to do in the situation.

                      In real life I have developed relationships with people who would take a bullet for me and I for them everywhere I’ve gone, so either I have a totally different personality online from IRL or the “bad faith” thing is just an excuse people make to dislike someone they disagree with. I honestly don’t know.

                    4. Tulpy-Poo, your projection is epic in scale. You are truly one of the stupidest people I’ve ever seen. Congratulations, you manage to be a retard and you didn’t even need an extra chromosome.

                    5. The ad hom within you is swelling. With each passing comment you make yourself more and more my servant.

                    6. With each passing comment you make yourself more and more my servant

                      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                      It’s stunning how much you don’t understand how stupid this makes you look, yet you keep doing it. You are truly one of the stupidest people I’ve ever encountered. You should be proud. Oh wait, you should be ashamed. I got that backwards.

                    7. Bo is treated similarly because he’s a prick with an ego which outpaces his intellect. As he has stated (with not a bit of exasperation), there are plenty of commenters with less affinity for libertarianism who are treated better than he is, including myself — but much like yourself, his little bloggyhorse is hectoring the commentariat on how they, through their collective failings in criticizing other commenters, have let this place go to shit.

                      In Bo’s case, it’s psychodrama masquerading as ideological Puritanism (or is it the other way around? I can never tell.) In your case, it’s pointless bullshit about how impolite and superficial SF and Epi are.

                    8. So I’m not supposed to defend myself when insulted and libeled by them?

                    9. I bet people would look more favorably on you if you just ignored the insults. I mean, I was in that same abortion thread and had my logic referred to as FULL RETARD. Big deal; the people reading can either agree or disagree with that assessment and my whining about it won’t make a lick of difference. Moreover, if (as you often point out) arguments rise and fall by the merits of the argument rather than that of the person, then why do you care what you’re called on the internet? No one knows (or cares) who you are on the internet; for all you people know I’m an illiterate Thai prostitute who posts copypasta between orgasms. The internet and what is on it is less of a big deal than you are making it out to be; most of the people posting here would much rather be jacking it to porn. Just have fun and use the internet to expand your horizons a little; just like in real life you can ignore the people who annoy you.

                    10. I bet people would look more favorably on you if you just ignored the insults. I mean, I was in that same abortion thread and had my logic referred to as FULL RETARD.

                      I got called all sorts of shit today by CentristClassicalLiberal (who may actually have been a Tulpa sockpuppet) and American Socialist. I just insulted them back, explained why their arguments are horseshit, and moved on.

                      I do not understand people who throw a fit when people are mean to them on the internet.

                    11. You are of course correct in all the particulars.

                      It does get irritating and emotionally difficult to walk away (which is why trolling works), especially when the attackers are high-fiving each other after the attacks and being treated nicely by other people on the blog who are more respectable. And we’re not talking about being told “you don’t know what you’re talking about” or something of that nature; we’re talking about being called an authoritarian statist and being accused of sucking on genitalia of some disfavored group. The “thin-skinned” claim doesn’t seem applicable here.

                      It does bother me to see someone like Pro Libertate, for example, who I have no direct distaste for, completely ignore or dismiss me over and over and then deal respectfully with someone like Episiarch. It shouldn’t, logically, but it does.

                    12. .

                    13. My god you have to be the biggest little pussy whiner ever in the history of man. Cry more, Tulpy-Poo. Leak saltwater for us, you mewling little cunt.

                    14. Why wont PRO LIB PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEE!!!!

                    15. “for all you people know I’m an illiterate Thai prostitute who posts copypasta between orgasms.”

                      The modern day replacement for the Chinese Box. I like it.

                    16. “with an ego which outpaces his intellect”

                      The projection, it burns!

                      “it’s psychodrama masquerading as ideological Puritanism”

                      Look, if you want to see noting the curious phenomena of so many regulars here being in consistent (and whiny) disagreement with the Reason writers here as that, I guess you can make up anything.

                    17. Sorry if that makes me condescending but WTF am I supposed to do in the situation.

                      Leave and don’t come back.

                    18. Look, Imma be real with you because I had a good run today and finished an excellent book and shit like that. I have never been crazy about you because we disagree about some fundamental things, but whatever. It was shit like the time you tried to argue probability wasn’t math, or whateverthefuck, the goal-post-moving, the wanting to contact a state AG over Kosher-for-Passover Coke that were just annoying.

                      But sockpuppeting is THE crime of the reputation economy. Epi can be a dick from here until the end of the world (and he will be), but we reliably know who his handle represents. That has value. There is clearly value in the fact that you “know” me and that we have some history together to refer back to, if only for the purposes of this conversation. And that is what you idiotically destroyed. Any possible vestige of goodwill necessarily went out the window not because you’re a dick, but because we couldn’t even trust you to be a dick, or not a dick, or anything at all.

                    19. I wasn’t sockpuppeting in that sense of the word.

                      The bad kind of sockpuppeting is creating aliases who agree with your positions, or speak favorably about yourself. That is absolutely not what was happening with Rollo.

                      Epi can be a dick from here until the end of the world (and he will be), but we reliably know who his handle represents. That has value. There is clearly value in the fact that you “know” me and that we have some history together to refer back to, if only for the purposes of this conversation. And that is what you idiotically destroyed.

                      Now you’re talking about identity theft, which is totally not what happened. I didn’t take over the identity of another commenter. I didn’t change or take advantage of what the name Tulpa, or any other name you were familiar with, represented to you. When you saw the name Rollo you presumably didn’t have any preconceived notions about who that person was or any history you may have had.

                      And of course, many commenters here have changed their names, both permanently and temporarily as a D’s A. “Neoliberal Kochtopus” has had like 5 long-term names at various times and nobody gave a shit when this was discovered. So I find it hard to believe this is some cardinal rule of internet community that I’ve violated.

                    20. I change my handle too, but everyone knows it’s me. The point is NOT identity theft; it’s about maintaining your own identity. And not multiple ones.

                    21. The point is NOT identity theft; it’s about maintaining your own identity.

                      But your argument above, offered to justify your distaste for me, is explicitly about identity theft. Do you have an argument as to why failing to maintain a recognizable identity is a cardinal sin of the Internet?

                      If so you better castigate Randian/Ayn_Randian/The Angry Optimist/Neoliberal Kochtopus (and several others who’ve posted under mutually unrelated names) about it.

                    22. Why would I need to castigate Randian when he did that openly and everyone knew and understood it clearly within a brief period of time? I didn’t say anything at any point about identity theft.

                    23. Epi can be a dick from here until the end of the world (and he will be), but we reliably know who his handle represents. That has value. There is clearly value in the fact that you “know” me and that we have some history together to refer back to, if only for the purposes of this conversation.

                      You are talking about identity theft here. Regardless of what term you were using for it. It certainly does not apply to the situation with me, for the reasons I gave above.

                      And Randian used NK as his alias for a while before fessing up to the general population.

                    24. Where on earth do you see shit about identity theft???

                      I knew the Nk change immediately and helped disseminate that info.

                    25. How could anything in that paragraph be construed as identity theft?

                      She’s talking about your reputation and credibility (or lack thereof).

                      YOU, quite simply, assumed another identity to fuck with people.

                    26. Epi can be a dick from here until the end of the world (and he will be), but we reliably know who his handle represents.

                      Which handle did my actions cause someone not to know who it really was, FDA/Nikki?

                      Which handle did you think you had a history with, because of my actions?

                    27. Which handle did my actions cause someone not to know who it really was, FDA/Nikki?

                      All of them that weren’t Tulpa. Do you actually not get that, or are you trying to make some kind of point about how none of the handles is “really you”?

                      The point is that as far as we care, the “real you” is the set of comments made by you. And we were highly misled about what that set included.

                    28. All of them that weren’t Tulpa.

                      Sigh. You’re moving the goal posts again.

                      Epi can be a dick from here until the end of the world (and he will be), but we reliably know who his handle represents. That has value. There is clearly value in the fact that you “know” me and that we have some history together to refer back to, if only for the purposes of this conversation.

                      You did not think you reliably knew who Rollo represented.

                      You did not have a history together with Rollo.

                    29. You did not think you reliably knew who Rollo represented.

                      You did not have a history together with Rollo.

                      Rollo commented on threads with Tulpa. I’m not “mad at” Rollo; I’m mad at you, i.e., “the commenter primarily known as Tulpa,” who is a fucking liar.

                    30. I would, insanely, genuinely like to see you address two of my points you’ve ignored:

                      The point is that as far as we care, the “real you” is the set of comments made by you. And we were highly misled about what that set included.

                      And:

                      How could you possibly speak to any of us without leveraging that knowledge? Do you think you somehow compartmentalized that information and it had no effect on how you communicated with us?

                    31. I can’t respond to everything but whatever:

                      1. You guys have a weird idea of the “real me” and indeed the real anyone if that’s the case. So if I attempt to make a comment but the squirrels won’t accept it, does that change the real me somehow?

                      And given the warped of my comments that get thrown in my face, not back in my face because they never came from my face to begin with, there’s already far more misunderstanding of the real me than I could possibly foment by posting under a hundred aliases.

                      2. The Rollo comments did not reference any prior knowledge of anyone here. That’s something that can be determined by looking at the comments.

                      If you’re creeped out by my knowing about your previous commenting history while I was posting as Rollo, I don’t know what to say. I don’t even know with any certitude the first thing about you tbh. You’re just another anonymous person.

                    32. 1. The “real you” is our experience of you, again, the set of your comments. If the squirrels eat them, we don’t experience them, so they’re not relevant.

                      2. “Referencing” and “leveraging” are not the same thing. You can’t un-fry things, and you can’t act like you don’t have an advantage when you know who you’re dealing with, but your interlocutor does not.

                    33. But everybody’s experience of me is going to be different. To begin with, nobody here reads all the comments that every commenter has made, let alone remembers them. And that’s before we get to the questions of interpretation and proper context.

                      And of course if I had simply refrained from posting the stuff I posted under Rollo, your impression would be the same as if I posted it under Rollo and noone ever found out it was really me. So indeed I didn’t even alter my posting history from what you would have preferred me to do.

                    34. Serious mental illness there.

                    35. Which handle did my actions cause someone not to know who it really was

                      Um…you pretended not to be Tulpa…someone we all have experience with. AND you lied and said you were a drug counselor to lend credibility to your argument.

                      Rollo|3.2.14 @ 5:14PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      What about the costs of drug abuse for the abusers themselves? And their families?

                      As a court-sanctioned drug abuse counsellor, I see examples every day of people who would never have come to me voluntarily if they weren’t forced to by the courts and law enforcement. Nobody seeks counselling for something they enjoy doing and feel good about, even if it’s sapping their brain fluids every time they indulge. You talk about ‘freedom’ but what kind of freedom is that, where you don’t want to do what’s necessary to live your life without addiction? Sometimes you have to force people to become free.

                    36. I’ve always known the H+R community has the utmost respect for court appointed drug counselors.

                    37. And that was never my opinion anyway so why would I even want to lend credibility to it?

                    38. And that was never my opinion anyway so why would I even want to lend credibility to it?

                      So you not only made up a fake backstory, but you purposefully made arguments you don’t even believe for no reason other than to be a contrarian?

                      Tulpa, you realize that that’s just trolling right? I’d expect that sort of shit from Shrike.

                    39. I made arguments I don’t believe in for the same reason football players on the same team play against each other in practice. I thought the blog was bigger than me.

                    40. It was a PUBLIC FUCKING SERVICE when I lied to you you stupid fucking rubes!

                    41. I made arguments I don’t believe in for the same reason football players on the same team play against each other in practice

                      Wow. Just wow. You are so fucking retarded that I think we need a new term for your level of stupidity. Tulparded? Retulpaed?

                      I thought the blog was bigger than me

                      What does this even mean, you moronic shithead? What the fuck is wrong with you?!?

                    42. I made arguments I don’t believe in for the same reason football players on the same team play against each other in practice. I thought the blog was bigger than me.

                      This is an insane argument.

                      ‘I purposefully made false arguments because I thought you guys needed the practice!’

                      Again: That’s just trolling.

                    43. If we took a poll on the street, more people would agree with Rollo’s position than with Reason/LP “legalize everything” position.

                      So yeah, I think you all better be prepared to argue against it.

                    44. AND you lied and said you were a drug counselor to lend credibility to your argument.

                      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I didn’t even know about this. Tulpa made up a fake backstory about supposedly being a drug counselor so that he could give false evidence to back up an argument?

                      Do you really not see how fucked up that is, Tulpa?

                      You talk about ‘freedom’ but what kind of freedom is that, where you don’t want to do what’s necessary to live your life without addiction? Sometimes you have to force people to become free.

                      Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!

                      Nobody seeks counselling for something they enjoy doing and feel good about, even if it’s sapping their brain fluids every time they indulge.

                      Wow. I’m surprised people didn’t buy this argument when you used such scientific terminology as ‘sapping their brain fluids.’

                    45. The bad kind of sockpuppeting

                      That you say this, and think you get to decide this, depicts why you’re so roundly despised.

                      You are a blight to be excised.

                    46. “Neoliberal Kochtopus” has had like 5 long-term names at various times and nobody gave a shit when this was discovered.

                      That’s because he didn’t change it to fuck with people, you obtuse shit stain.

                    47. When you saw the name Rollo you presumably didn’t have any preconceived notions about who that person was or any history you may have had.

                      But you knew who I was! and everything I’d previously talked about with you. And pretended you didn’t. That is untrustworthy behavior.

                    48. Come on, Nikki, that’s weak. That’s true of any lurker who suddenly starts posting.

                      If I were leveraging that kind of knowledge under an alias that would probably be a no-no, but show me the evidence that Rollo did that.

                      I’m not nitpicking here, I’m just really not happy that you made a pretty damn strong accusation against me — of commenting in bad faith, destroying the community — and don’t seem to have anything to base it on.

                    49. Holy…shit.

                      That is some serious mental illness on display there folks.

                    50. I’m sure that’s not a regular commenter hypocritically posting under a fake name.

                    51. I’m sure I don’t care what a brainsick fuck like you thinks!

                      Self-destruct more shitbag!

                    52. I’m sure that’s not a regular commenter hypocritically posting under a fake name.

                      And no one is treating it like a lurker making his first appearance.

                    53. Way to move the goal posts, Nikki.

                      You’ve gone from an impassioned speech against identity theft (whatever you were calling it at the time) to a demand to be able to use things that are not contained in a comment against the commenter.

                    54. a demand to be able to use things that are not contained in a comment against the commenter

                      Does this mean something other than, “I wanted people to bend over backwards being nice to me so I pretended to be the new kid”?

                    55. I don’t remember Rollo getting treated with kid gloves upon appearing, Nikki.

                    56. I don’t remember Rollo getting treated with kid gloves

                      That’s because my first comment was giving your shitty sockpuppet a failing grade, you fucking obvious moron. I am having trouble comprehending that you are actually this stupid. It’s incredible. Show it to the world, Tulpy-Poo.

                    57. Also, wtf does it say about this whole thing that you think this is about using prior info against people. That only happens if you’re an asshole. If you’re nice, smart, interesting, etc., it’s the opposite.

                    58. And of course that’s the bad kind of sockpuppeting, since I’m sure he/she is also attacking me under his/her primary name. Won’t hold my breath for anyone to accuse him/her of destroying the trust and reputation of the community or whatever the excuse is.

                    59. “Someone’s trying to get away with what I tried to do! No fair!”

                      Your pitiful sobbing is beyond belief. Please kill yourself now.

                    60. I’m sure he/she is also attacking me under his/her primary name.

                      I sure am you brainsick fuck.

                    61. How could you possibly speak to any of us without leveraging that knowledge? Do you think you somehow compartmentalized that information and it had no effect on how you communicated with us? Further, you’re right that it’s similar to the early comments of a lurker–and you also know full well that newly commenting lurked are treated differently than community members in long standing. So, you’re on the bad-faith side of that one too, as far as I’m concerned.

                      It should be clear to you, I hope, that I’m not being mean. If you don’t think people felt betrayed, even people who weren’t crazy about you, you’re just wrong.

                    62. I didn’t feel betrayed. I thought it was pathetic because sockpuppeting is pathetic. In order to feel betrayed I’d have to take an internet forum far more seriously than I do.

                    63. If you don’t think people felt betrayed, even people who weren’t crazy about you, you’re just wrong.

                      I’m a gorram anonymous blog commenter who, afaik, you have never seen or talked to in your real life. There’s no way you should have had any trust in me that could be betrayed. Should I feel betrayed by whoever it is commenting under an altered version of my name above? I’m not trying to make fun of sincere feelings, I’m sorry if anyone’s feelings were hurt by me, but I’m legitimately perplexed that anyone could get that invested in an anonymous blog.

                    64. I’m legitimately perplexed that anyone could get that invested in an anonymous blog.

                      Nah, I can see getting invested enough to run multiple handles and argue against myself.

                    65. This is the finest example of your complete autistic retardedness that I could have possibly asked for. You just spelled it out for everyone, and you are too fucking stupid to even understand why. Dig that hole, Tulpy-Poo! You’re almost to China!

                    66. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is considered autistic.

                    67. Your delusions of grandeur are Napoleonic in scale, Tulpy-Poo. You are pathetic beyond anything I could have foreseen. And you keep posting and reinforcing that to everyone, and you just don’t understand that. I’d feel sad for you if you weren’t such a complete and utter scumbag.

                    68. I didn’t say I went and cried about it for hours. But within the scale of “caring about blog comments,” did I feel the community’s good faith was taken advantage of? Yes.

                      And I feel like pointing out: it’s not about hurt feelings. It’s about credibility and reputation, which are exactly how we function since we DON’T really know each other.

                    69. You change your handle in order to trick people into talking to you, Tulpa. You’re a fraud and a liar and for the saddest reason imaginable.

                      Who else has been caught repeatedly changing handles in order to evade filters and to trick people into interacting with them? Mary, Edward, Dan T., OhioOrrin and White Indian. That is some fine and august company to keep, Tulpa. You’ve sunk to the lowest strata of this community. You are pathetic. If you hadn’t aggressed against this body so many times with your venal stupidity, I’d take mercy on you. But alas…

                      Change your handle again, Tulpa. That will allow you to rattle your cup for spare change for a few days, a filthy beggar for the attention you can’t get in your so-called real life.

                    70. If I’ve done all that I’m still light-years less a scumbag than a libellous twit like yourself.

                      Yesterday you ultimately admitted to lying about two commenters just to stir them and me up. As I said above, you’re guilty of everything I’m accused of, and then some.

                    71. No, see, you have to change your handle for it to work. Now that you’ve burned another identity to ash in the fires of your angry pouting, “Hydra” is bankrupt as well.

                      Your past is following you around like a noxious cloud, Tulpa. You have to run to stay ahead of it. OhioOrrin would have a new handle a day, White Indian would have dozen on a single thread. Run, little Tulpa. Memory is coming for you.

                    72. You do not discuss, you gibber.

                    73. This,^^^ms Nikki, he’s a dishonest fuck and deserves all the scorn he gets.

    2. I know you’re going off the food truck riff, but you shouldn’t believe the SugarFree version of things as he’s prone to exaggeration (by which I mean lying).

      I supported food trucks operating on private property with the property owner’s permission, with no licensing required by the government. Where I said the city or county had a say was when they operate rent-free on public property that is not intended for food distribution (eg an on-street parking space).

      So obviously I support people making food in their own homes without government interference.

      1. .

      2. I guess I expected Hydra to reveal he is a regulator with his city’s health department, and he knows first-hand how dangerous unsupervised food preparation can be.

        We need the practice!!

  10. Commerce Clause means that if there is commerce, if there is money changing hands, then the government has a duty to be involved! And government is us! We the people! How can we the people know that it’s real food unless the seller has a government license? How can we the people be sure it’s not poison unless the seller has a government permit? How can anyone be sure of anything unless we the people say it’s good? Because government is us and we are government! We the people!

  11. by charging a “fee” you are running a business out of your home. if you are cooking at home, serving unknown guests and charging that ‘fee’? then yes you are basically operating as a restaurant. where’s the confusion about that???

    there’s a huge difference in “hosting” a dinner party for friends and relatives and doing that for people unknown and charging a “fee”.

    1. You obviously didn’t read my above question. If I host a dinner party and don’t get paid, why am I unregulated while a paid dinner party is not? There’s just as high a possibility that there is bacteria in my kitchen if I’m feeding people for free as there is if I’m getting paid.

      Therefore, your complaint about this isn’t based on logical fears about health and safety, it’s based on a cravenly fear of trade, prosperity, fun, and money.

      1. Public schools and places ‘heavily regulated’ are about the dirties places I’ve ever seen.

        1. Oh, look. The first comment I was able to post in a couple of days.

          Fuck you Reason and your squirrels.

  12. if the eatwith providers are ok with food inspectors showing up to inspect their kitchens at all hours of the day and night….and fostering a smoke free air supply…and undergoing the strenuous regiment of food safety training….and following workplace and kitchen osha requirements… like real restaurants are required to do…..then good for them…but until then we have to ask for fairness right….

    1. Why are you posting under two different names and not capitalizing your letters or using proper grammar in either of them?

    2. but until then we have to ask for fairness right….

      What are you, a rent-seeking restaurateur?

      1. You want to know what he is? A totally different commenter than Echo, who just happened to post a minute later and also doesn’t use capital letters.

        Your libertardian conspiracy theories won’t save you from the fearsome logic of Echo or the totally unrelated nidicolous.

    3. This is not a very good argument, those regulations exist primarily for the purpose of preventing competition, not making sure people are eating safe food. It’s a bit rich to do everything you can to get rules put in place to protect your position in the market and then pontificate about how fairness demands that everyone abide by those rules.

      1. I especially love that he thinks people should have to ‘foster a smoke free air supply’ when feeding people in their own fucking homes.

        Apparently the moment I pay someone to cook for me, I am no longer legally allowed to smoke in my own house. Good luck enforcing that.

        1. They’re doing amazing things with drones these days.

  13. And so it begins

    A man whose son was among the victims killed in a shooting rampage near a California university quaked with grief and rage Saturday as he described his “lost and broken” family and the proliferation of guns he believes led to his son’s death.

    “Our son Christopher and six others are dead,” Richard Martinez told reporters gathered outside a sheriff’s station for a news conference the day after the shootings near the University of California, Santa Barbara, where the 20-year-old son was a sophomore. “You don’t think it’ll happen to your child until it does.”

    Martinez choked back tears as he spoke, then grew angrier as he talked about gun laws and lobbyists.

    “The talk about gun rights. What about Chris’ right to live?” Martinez said. “When will enough people say: ‘Stop this madness! We don’t have to live like this! Too many people have died!”

    He then punctuated his words as he said, “We should say to ourselves: ‘Not! One! More!'” before dissolving into tears and falling to his knees as he stepped from the podium.

    I’m guessing no amount of gun laws could stop a rich kid with obvious premeditation from obtaining a gun. But I guess trying is good enough for them.

    1. If only the California legislature weren’t run by Republican NRA enthusiasts, this tragedy could have been averted.

      1. Again, as distasteful as it is to point to these tragedies to make a political point, I would refer these people to the Belgium shooting story I posted above. Not much gun rights in Belgium.

        1. Not much gun rights in CA either.

        2. Not much gun rights in Nigeria either.

    2. What about Chris’ right to live?

      Murder is a crime. Next question.

      1. I’ll give the guy a pass at this moment of grief. If he’s still at it down the road, he’s just another CA moron.

    3. A few days ago a knife-wielding 21-year-old killed 4 people in Taiwan (where guns are illegal).

      Similar knife attacks have occurred in China several times this year.

      It’s possible that the availability of guns increases the number or lethality of mass killings, but I’ve yet to see convincing evidence to that effect.

      1. And yet violent crimes continues to go down and America as a whole is safer now than it ever has been.

        Mass shootings of this nature are a statistical guarantee given the size and diversity of American and the number of privately owned guns. The simple fact is that it is a trade-off we accept for the right to keep and bear arms, an essential liberty necessary for the security of a free society.

        The amount of government authority needed to make any meaningful dents in gun crime is abhorrent.

    4. Still here Notorious?

      “The talk about gun rights. What about Chris’ right to live?” Martinez said. “When will enough people say: ‘Stop this madness! We don’t have to live like this! Too many people have died!”

      They always trot these people out. The problem with progs is that they do not argue in good faith. They claim they want a clean green planet but what they really want is to put their boot on your neck. They say they want to reduce gun violence but what they want is to put their boot on your neck. They say they want better schools but what they want is to put their boot on your neck. You argue those issues in good faith, but like religious fanatics their arguments and points keep changing but the conclusion is always the same. Look at every single fucking issue they undertake. The answer is always the same; more money and power for the government and less freedom for you. No matter how the argument evolves the answer is always the same.

      1. I’m guessing the grieving father is sincere – was he put up to it by a prog organization?

        I think belief in gun control is based on a sincere belief that restricting guns will reduce “gun violence.” (though based on one conversation I had, some may be based on worrying what they or their spouses would do if they had guns – one guy said if they’d had a gun in the house his wife of 40-some years might have shot him, to which I replied that she could simply have waited until he was asleep and used a knife – which apparently she hadn’t!)

        Yes, I think they’re wrong to trust the govt as much as they do, and yes it’s based on a priori principles (unlike libertarians!), and yes as Haidt documented (and I’ve observed) they wouldn’t pass an ideological Turing test when it came to summarizing their opponents’ arguments, but none of this amounts to insincerity, they have picked up some wrong premises. I wouldn’t be surprised if I had some wrong premises myself, or even if you did.

        1. I was a prog at one point, maybe I wasn’t 100% rational, but I don’t recall having bad faith.

          Now, I may have recently have alienated two or three progs I know when I outed myself as prolife – haven’t heard from them since, I’ll see what happens when I meet them again (I thought they already knew!)

        2. Even me? Now that is just unpossible!

          I should have distinguished between the true believers and the leading figures. Yes the father is sincere but Diane Feinstein is not.

          Sincere or not, you will never convince the guy. Over time, like Sarah Brady, he will eventually see the error of his argument but because of spite, or hatred of humanity, or something, he will continue to argue even more fervently for disarming the public. He will keep it up even as he gets a CCW for himself.

          I hope I am wrong but I would advise you not to bet money against me.

          1. At one time when a Republican politician he hated made a good point, the guy said basically, “I don’t like that politician but he’s right about this issue.”

            I don’t think he’ll change his mind fundamentally, but if he did he’d say so.

        3. I think belief in gun control is based on a sincere belief that restricting guns will reduce “gun violence.”

          Nah, they don’t. I used to believe that, but they don’t.

          Example is the guy who was the director of some anti-gun violence organization complaining that Cody Wilson wasn’t just trying to create a gun, he was trying to fundamentally change our relationship to government.

          Why would the director of say, Mothers Against Drunk Driving be concerned about the structures of our democracy when discussing a DUI accident death?

          In the case of the quote about Cody Wilson, the mask slipped. They want the boot on your neck, the ‘gun violence’ angle is merely a sales strategy. It’s the man with the attractive woman on the pack of cigarettes. One has nothing to do with each other, except to grab your attention.

      2. The fact that they trot these people out is not proof of bad faith, it’s proof they can’t argue rationally.

        I don’t think the average prog argues in bad faith. I think the solipsistic, pseudo-intellectual, professorial progs argue in bad faith, but the average progressive is just very emotional and allows his emotions to cloud his judgement.

        When you look at a progressive website, it is all pure emotion. There is very little rational argumentation, either in the actual posts and articles themselves or within the commentariat. It is all a Manichean psycho-drama in which the poor, benighted, and rebellious progressives wage their noble crusade against the forces of reactionary darkness.

        That’s not bad faith. It’s pathetic sentimentalist nonsense, but they actually believe this stuff and aren’t trying to lie.

        1. I was referring to the standard bearers. I should have been more clear. Exactly NONE of the progressive standard bearers argue in good faith. Not a single one.

          The average proggy though, you are exactly right.

          My original point to Notorious was that you have an equal chance of getting either to concede in an argument. He has more faith in humanity than I do.
          Maybe I am wrong. The progs I have engaged with over the last ten years have sort of grown silent. I think they believe the reason their bullshit isn’t working is that the wrong people are in charge. I don’t think it will ever occur to them that the positions their feelings tell them is correct is just flawed.

          Like a religious believer told me years ago ” I can’t disagree with anything you say, I can’t refute any of your points, but I just can’t accept where that leads. It doesn’t matter what you say I am never going to give up my belief.”.

          1. Let me say this: Not only is it inevitable that people have basic premises they hesitate to re-examine, it’s *desirable.* The alternative is to be in a perpetual state of uncertainty, blown about with every wind of doctrine. And I don’t think it’s psychologically possible for a healthy person.

            What *is* possible is to deliberately expose oneself to evidence contradicting one’s premises, and from time to time taking that evidence out of the file and examining it and seeing if it requires any rethinking.

            So I can see someone not giving in immediately in a single conversation, I don’t know if that even happens, but one should be open to the possibility that the accumulated weight of the evidence will cause a rethink of some premises.

            1. Numero uno, changing one’s mind is threatening – because it’s unknown. So there’s Strike One.

              Numero two-o, it’s tough to change one’s mind under pressure from someone who’s arguing with you, because that’s like a gesture of submission. You may as well admit your dick is smaller. So there’s Strike Two.

              Numero three-o, you’d have to risk alienating the people you know and respect. So for many, that is Strike Three.

              And I think people of *all* shades of opinion are subject to that.

              1. So should I concede that you are being less cynical than I am or should I just stick with my position no matter what you say?

                You will have the occasional victory now and then. Some people are more intellectually honest than others and some are more prone to rational thought than others. I suppose there are many progs who fall into those categories. Still, I vaguely remember a study showing that only about 7% of people are naturally curious and prone to critical thinking. The rest, not so much.

                1. I would want to know the details of this study.

                  I would distinguish between random irrationality and cognitive shortcuts, based on past experience and what people you trust have told you. Sometimes these shortcuts are wrong, but if developed over time, they could well be right.

                  Consider all the clever people who think they’re smarter than the herd, and then get shocked when some study confirms that the common herd was right all along.

                  To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, not everyone can give a 10-bullet-point explanation of some particular belief of theirs, but if it’s based on tradition, sources they found reliable in the past, etc., then it could still be true, and in any event no *less* likely to be true than some elaborate system a guy worked out in his head.

                  I don’t even know if that’s responsive, right now I’m just free-associating.

                  1. To paraphrase Thomas Sowell, not everyone can give a 10-bullet-point explanation of some particular belief of theirs, but if it’s based on tradition, sources they found reliable in the past, etc., then it could still be true, and in any event no *less* likely to be true than some elaborate system a guy worked out in his head.

                    This is similar to arguments Chesterton and Burke made about the importance of tradition as well. Hell, I’d argue that it’s similar to Hayek and Popper’s arguments about ’emergent order.’ Basically, many traditional beliefs are the result of trial and error of generations…trial and error which no human being could reproduce.

                    As such, ‘tradition’ can often create a far better system for doing something than a system that is consciously designed simply because the millions of people involved in the trial and error which developed the tradition had far more collective knowledge than any individual technocrat could hope to possess. I think there are flaws with this argument, such as the fact that traditions are often illogical and based on bizarre reasoning and old fashioned ideas which have been invalidated, but aspects of the argument are persuasive.

                    1. That expresses it the way I would have liked to.

                      None of this means that traditions cannot err – at some point, some prog is bound to mention that slavery was a tradition, and so forth.

                      But there’s an annoying habit of some clever people – Burke’s “political geometricians” – of cross examining some poor soul about why they hold some view, then tripping them up, and saying “what’s the matter with Kansas, that they hold such irrational views?”

                      (Which is sometimes followed up with “Karl Rove/the capitalists/the Lizard People tricked them into these beliefs!”)

                  2. That study? Wow, that has been a while back and I only have a fuzzy memory of reading it. I wish I had details too, it was a good one.

                    Skeptic magazine? I think? Ten or more years ago?

                    I am too tired now to go looking. Somewhere I have a box filled with old issues. Or maybe I don’t. I gave up on them when they took up the global warming canard. They started arguing in Skeptic magazine that anyone who was skeptical about global warming could not possibly have anything to say worth listening to.

                    1. Skepticism means unquestioningly believing what people skeptics tell you.

                      Didn’t you know that? If you question skeptics, then how can you be skeptical?

                    2. I was about to comment, then I realized I know less about that study than you do – so I’ll just post the trifecta of Youtube videos – baby, puppy, cats!

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSH_F5aTXy4

                    3. One parting remark – I don’t know about other languages, but English uses the same word (“true”) to describe factual accuracy and loyalty to a person or group. There’s a fundamental human trait embodied in that, IMHO.

                    4. My guess because they both mean cleaving to a desired path (arrow), design, idea or person.

                      Ask Heroic when you see him. He is a linguist.

                    5. The only thing I remember about it was the 7% number for people who are naturally curious to the point where they investigate things they are told with a skeptical eye.

                      I looked at the site and see they have archives. I will go looking tomorrow and see if I can find it.

  14. One day our private activities (like dinners) will be regulated somehow.

    Mark my words. Are we that far off from someone getting sick at a dinner going full blown progtard demanding regulations?

    Call me ‘extremist’ or ‘paranoid’ I don’t mind. We’re on that trajectory.

    1. “Call me ‘extremist’ or ‘paranoid’ I don’t mind.”

      Ok, You paranoid extremist, the next time you want to make this point just link to one of the stories about England having food inspectors go house to house and inspect refrigerators in private residences, or security cams in private homes watching how people raise their children.

      1. That is truly frightening shit in England.

        How the fuck do those retarded Brits accept that crap?

        Never been invaded since 1066! Never realizing progressivism already infiltrated and conquered them.

        1. It is the birthplace of liberty. *snort*

        2. “Never been invaded since 1066!”

          1688 says hi.

          1. Did I miss an actual conquering of Britain in 1688?

        3. How the fuck do those retarded Brits accept that crap?

          Accept it? They demand it.

  15. It used to be that when I saw a thread that seemed to have an oddly high number of responses, it was because Tony or Buttplug or Mary had arrived for trolling. Now it’s Tulpa and/or various not- and anti-Tulpas. I think. I’m not sure. It’s all off-topic and wearisome….

    1. It’s me trying to make an on-topic point, followed by 9-10 people having a temper tantrum. And me reacting to them, which I know I shouldn’t be feeding the trolls, but it’s hard to resist.

      1. I am gonna repeat what Irish said. When I first came here I tried arguing with you in good faith, tried for over a year, maybe even two. Then I realized exactly what Sugarfree and co. said about you was true. They nailed you.

        I guess I am a slow learner, but I never forget.

        1. Nobody ever seems to have an example of me arguing in bad faith.

          The example Irish gave was incorrect on what actually happened, which makes me think people just hate the Tulpa inside their head.

          1. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            Oh god the mental gymnastics you contort yourself through to convince yourself that you’re not a despicable moron are absolutely amazing. You have to be one of the most deluded people I’ve ever encountered. You’ve never had an actual friend in your life, have you, sociopath. Not a single one. Holy fuck you are pathetic.

            1. Come on. Tulpa’s gotten increasingly bizarre and I don’t know what the hell he’s thinking, but this is unfairly mean, even for him.

              1. Don’t egg him on, he might buy a firearm and only god knows what might happen then…

          2. I am not interested in giving you examples or of arguing with you about anything. You aren’t going to convince me otherwise because at some point in the past I just got enough and put you on my personal shit list. I don’t specifically remember why nor do I care to. I put you on the list and then put you out of my mind.

            At one time I was even trying to defend you somewhat by pointing out that your pattern of thinking was that of a math teacher and that thou approached even non-math problems that way, but then you proved me wrong with some seriously mendacious bullshit. So, on the list you go.

  16. Tulpa, Bo, “Carl” the budding neuroscientist of the shifting handles…

    The shit train had a wreck and spilled all the tankers.

    1. One of those is not like the other.

    2. Um, trollo – check (ha!) Carl’s handle – same email for some long time now. You have unfairly lumped him in with two power twits.

    1. Incompetence or well-planned graft?

      1. In France that is called win-win.

    2. It’s not like the dimensions are a secret:
      http://joycewhitchurch.zxq.net/gauges/text.htm

      1. BTW, the last time Mr and Ms Sevo were in Europe, it was obvious that claims of ‘Euros love trains’ was, well, a bit less than honest.
        Freight moves by truck and you had better be in the exit lane several miles early, or the trucks occupying that lane won’t let you off.

  17. If they would just stop cooking everything this could be an end to the food desert problem!

    Well, maybe not since even a Trader Joe’s and a Super Target in the same census tract does not impact a food desert. You have to gave a grocer within one mile of every poor person to eliminate food deserts in the old formula, .5 mile in the new formula.

    Let’s try this, folks in food deserts grow food and sell it in their driveways! Problem solved until the cops show up.

  18. Let’s try this, folks in food deserts grow food and sell it in their driveways!

    You’re not seriously suggesting we use THE MARKET to FORCE these people back into the fields?

    1. Yea, the cops will be along in moments to stop this folly.

  19. For those still having trouble commenting, try logging out and logging back in. That cleared it up for me.

    1. I made a suggestion earlier that any contributor to Reason start cutting the contribution by some amount per day of this crap. It seems to have cleared up not long after that (for a while). My 2014 contribution is now reduced and a note will accompany the check.
      I’m a great fan of hitting ’em where it hurts: The wallet.

    2. I can comment, but to see the slow and continuing dissolution of tulpa, I am not sure it is worth it…

  20. So I am disappoint – all this talk about the dissembling over the “sharing economy” and no one points to the one fundamental factor that distinguishes this in the proggie mind: the free market is “profit” (and therefore BAD), while this nobler alternative is “sharing” (good!).

    1. Rent parties are so %1.

    2. I am still not clear as to whether or not the person hosting the dinner party has more money after the party than before it. Is all of the money going for supplies? We do that here all the time. Crawfish and fish and oil have become expensive to the point that everyone invited contributes, but the host doesn’t actually get paid. Everyone just spreads the cost out or brings a supply contribution.

      Or, is the host left with a tidy sum after all the guests are gone and the dishes put away?

      1. I haven’t seen the video but some of these people are making good money. I’ve seen these things going for well over $100 per person.

        1. So to avoid admitting to free market practices or using the word profit, they are calling it a warm fuzzy.

          1. It does make a certain sense – to a progressive words are more important than action/reality.

    3. Oh, and Irish pointed that out earlier.

      1. Guess it was buried by all the tulpa.

  21. http://freebeacon.com/issues/n…..employees/

    A New York National Labor Relations Board judge ruled that a Hooters franchise cannot force its employees to act in a respectful manner toward customers, nor could managers punish employees for insubordination. …

    Customers were nonplussed by the decision. A frequent Hooters patron, who requested anonymity so he could speak freely, said that he may cut back on his bi-weekly visits if such policies go into effect nationwide.

    “I wouldn’t go anymore,” he said. “I need them to be smiling.”

    1. “I wouldn’t go anymore,” he said. “I need them to be smiling.”

      Like he’s looking at their faces.

      1. After all that, you’re going to stay and comment as if nothing happened? Like anything you say has ANY credibility?

        You are pathetically shameless.

        1. That was for entertainment purposes; not sure what credibility has to do with it.

          I don’t find Nic Cage to be very credible but he was lights out in Con Air.

          1. HAHAHAHAHA! Tulpa’s a lying shitbag, but, boy, is he entertaining.

            I hear Chuck Manson is thinking of doing stand-up. That might be good too.

  22. So, I went back into an earlier thread from today where American Socialist was arguing that no prominent leftists have ever advocated concentration camps/forced sterilization/eugenics, etc. He got absolutely destroyed as people posted a dozen links to leftists arguing in favor of just those things.

    Sevo then mentioned Obama’s science czar saying that forced abortion/sterilization could be constitutional and might be necessary ‘by the end of the 1980’s.’ American socialist claimed this had been debunked, obviously without citing a source, so I looked it up. Here’s a politifact article claiming it’s a lie and giving Glenn Beck a pants on fire for saying it.

    Let’s look at the quotes from politifact itself. Here’s what politifact quotes John Holdren as arguing in a post where they claim he’s not in favor of forced sterilization:

    Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development.

    Cont.

    1. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. …

      So, Holdren’s primary concern about adding a universal sterilant to the water supply is that it might not be technically feasible. He has no moral objection.

      The author’s then say this:

      Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children.

      In other words, John Holdren is completely okay with forced universal sterilization, provided it met a certain number of guidelines. Glenn Beck’s statement that he’s okay with forced sterilization seems completely accurate, yet both American Socialist and Politifact claim it is a lie.

      It seems that Glenn Beck told the truth, and progressives circled the wagons in support of a legitimate eugenicist.

      1. Here’s part of Holdren’s defense from his office:

        The quoted material was from a section of the book that described different possible approaches to limiting population growth and then concluded that the authors’ own preference was to employ the noncoercive approaches before the environmental and social impacts of overpopulation led desperate societies to employ coercive ones. Dr. Holdren has never been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive means of population limitation.

        Unmentioned is the fact that the ‘overpopulation’ epidemic never developed and, as such, Holden’s entire discussion of coercive vs. non-coercive population control was based on nothing but bad and nonexistent science and Paul Erlich’s propaganda.

        This is Obama’s science czar, a man who, apparently uncritically, believed The Population Bomb to be a legitimate scientific work. Truly we are being led by ingenious philosopher kings who are simply too intelligent for us mortals to comprehend their genius.

        1. Before I write the whole thing, are the skwerels gone?

          1. They appear to be quiescent…FOR NOW!

        2. OK, now a couple of points:
          1) credit to Zombie! Those who don’t live in the bay area have no idea how valuable the guy is. He called the bullshit; it went out on the net and Holdren’s nomination went down the tubes; he wasn’t ever Obo’s cabinet member: http://www.zombietime.com/john_holdren/

          2) I asked the lying POS known as american socialist for a cite that the claim had been debunked. 4 times so far; crickets. I was pretty certain it was a bullshit claim and thanks to Irish, it has been shown to be so. Ehrlich made the same (not quite direct) proposals, and Zombie is dead-nuts on that “Holdren “hides behind the passive voice” as does Ehrlich; Fucking Malthusians always have wheels for the goalposts.
          Now: Hey commie-kid! Let’s see it!

          1. What’s amazing about this is that Zombie cites extended passages of the book, often entire paragraphs. This is one of the best jobs of political journalism I’ve seen in years, yet progressives basically denied its existence and lied to cover it up.

            Here’s another great quote:

            Although free and easy association of the sexes might be tolerated in such a society, responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption?especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even he possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

            Honest to God, read that segment. How can anyone claim this was taken out of context or that Holdren is not explicitly advocating forced abortion and the kidnapping of babies from their mothers?

          2. I posted something, but the squirrels may have eaten it. Sorry if I double post, but this is just…holy fucking son of God.

            Although free and easy association of the sexes might be tolerated in such a society, responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption?especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even he possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

            He’s saying it might be okay to forcefully seperate men and women in service to population control and then argues that women should either be forced to have abortions or have their children kidnapped by the government.

            1. Irish,
              american socialist is a slimy proggy bleever. There is no way that facts will effect that.

            2. Holdren would fit right in with adolph and the boys, while I’m not a proponent of the death penalty this fucker might make me change my mind.

        3. This is what I meant earlier about proggys never engaging in good faith.

          He is walking it back, denying it etc….oh no he would never do that.

          Supply him with a fake agent just like the one he was having a wet dream over and convince him he could secret it into the food supply and watch what he does.

        4. authors’ own preference was to employ the noncoercive approaches before the environmental and social impacts of overpopulation led desperate societies to employ coercive ones.

          So he’d rather everyone just listen to him now, but if they don’t, then more extreme measures will be necessary. That’s the defense?

          1. “That’s a nice uterus you have, would be a shame if something were to happen to it…”

          2. “So he’d rather everyone just listen to him now, but if they don’t, then more extreme measures will be necessary. That’s the defense?”

            american socialist strikes me as an adolescent; certainly a long way from self-knowledge. Immature idjits like that (and, hey, I might have qualified once) never look at the the end result of the unicorn farts they hope for.
            They have no concept that their utopian fantasies mean the deaths of millions; american socialist has blown that off regularly; not HIM. It’s a right-wing talking-point.

      2. it must be uniformly effective

        If the goal is controlling population growth (i.e. not killing all of humanity), why the fuck would it need to be uniformly effective.

        1. But Glenn Beck was just a wingnut liar and Holdren never said anything objectionable or Naziesque!

          Stop being such a wingnut liar and realize that Holdren’s total lack of moral qualms about universal sterilization is a rational moral argument backed up by science!

      3. What happens when all the poor and unintelligent people are drinking Brawndo?

    2. Politifact is often left-wing bullshit. They gave a Romney statement a bad rating that was entirely true. He quoted some government agency that said Obamacare (or some aspect of it) could cost “up to $X.” This was rated a lie because it was the top estimate. Yeah, that’s what “up to” means.

  23. The Piketty “debate” has officially made its way to Hacker News — two or three stories today and yesterday. Fuck.

    1. Piketty faked his numbers to conjure income inequality into existence just like Mann faked his to conjure up global doom. this is what you do when you know you are wrong but you need to convince people so you can enact your hidden agenda.

      There should be no debate. Communism has been tried. It doesn’t fucking work.

      1. That was supposed to say ‘conjure up increasing income inequality into existence’.

    2. Including the cites to his bad data, not to mention his presumptions based on that faulty info?
      And his question-begging regarding the presumption that a delta is bad?

    3. The Left is starting to get nervous about rushing to his defense. Last week Thomas Frank was astonished at just how clueless and inaccurate Picketty’s understanding of American history was.

      Now they are panicking about a way to make it seem like the holes and inaccuracies in his data aren’t so bad or are overstated.

      1. What’s hilarious is that even before this stuff about his flawed data came out, his book was still idiotic. He uses statistics and then makes wild proclamations that those statistics don’t back up. His entire book is rife with question begging since he never explains why inequality is actually bad. After all, if everyone gets wealthier, why’s it matter if some get more wealthier than others?

        So his book was moronic and filled with fallacies even before this information came out. I think it was Calidissident who read it and said that the policy prescriptions are moronic and not backed up by the evidence, but that some of the information he compiled had legitimate value to the economic field.

        Well, it turns out even that wasn’t true since the whole thing is a lie.

        1. After all, if everyone gets wealthier, why’s it matter if some get more wealthier than others?

          Political instability due to envy at the bottom and disproportionate influence at the top. You really do need a big middle class to have a rule of law based society.

        2. Irish|5.25.14 @ 12:40AM|#
          “What’s hilarious is that even before this stuff about his flawed data came out, his book was still idiotic. He uses statistics and then makes wild proclamations that those statistics don’t back up.”

          Similarly, the AGW noise. I am convinced the climate is changing (and would be surprised if it didn’t) and I’m also convinced human activity has some effect.
          That does NOT mean I’m willing to turn the economy over to the assholes who fill the shoe quota with one 5,000# sneaker.

        3. I think it was Calidissident who read it and said that the policy prescriptions are moronic and not backed up by the evidence, but that some of the information he compiled had legitimate value to the economic field

          I believe Picketty really did do a lot of work and expended an impressive amount of effort to collect his data.

          But as with any historical research project of that size you are going to get missing data and missing information. And it appears that rather than accept the limitations imposed by the lack of data he fudged and in some cases entirely made up numbers to suit his conclusions.

          In any case, I am willing to bet that the majority of left-wingers won’t ever read the book and will instead just put it on their coffee table so they can feel smart. They just assumed a French socialist that pissed off the talking heads at Fox News must be right, because Faux News is opposed to it you racist Koch-sucking teabagger!

      2. Didn’t Krugnuts lavish praise all over this work already making it seem like a prophet written tome of mystical wizardry ?

        I am endlessly amazed at the teflon credibility lefty intellectuals have. No matter how stunningly wrong they are, no matter how many times, it just never dents them. Krugmans credibility will remain intact, as will Piketty’s and tomorrow they will spin another tale just as bad that will be received with deafening praise.

        1. Does the name Michael Bellesiles ring a bell?

          1. I forgot about that guy.

            Apparently he is concocting..I mean writing a new book.

          2. The best part of the Michael Bellisiles controversy was the hilariously smug review from the Journal of American History in which the writers said the following:

            A review by Roger Lane in the Journal of American History called the book’s research “meticulous and thorough,” and wrote that Bellesiles had “attacked the central myth behind the National Rifle Association’s interpretation of the Second Amendment”. Lane declared Bellesiles’s evidence so formidable that “if the subject were open to rational argument”, the debate would be over.[3]

            It’s amazing how quickly leftists uncritically praise anything which conforms to their worldview, and how often they are subsequently embarrassed.

            1. Compare the unthinking adulations of ‘professional’ historians to the absolute asskicking that amateur historian Clayton Cramer handed to Bellesiles.

              I told those moderators, in about two minutes, how they could visit the Library of Congress’s web site, and see the pages in question themselves. It appears that they either couldn’t spend two minutes finding out if a major scandal was brewing, or didn’t consider academic fraud an important matter.

              (snip)

              He has given three different explanations for why his text of the Militia Act of 1792 was wrong?all three explanations failing to explain the error, and all three contradicting his other claims. Part of why I was prepared to invest this much time and effort into exposing Arming America’s gross falsification of the history of guns in America is because there are two subjects here that I care about: gun control, and integrity in history. If even ten percent of historians shared my political views (broadly conservative, with a libertarian tinge), Bellesiles would never have gotten away with this for so long. At some point, some professor who cared strongly about the right to keep and bear arms would have said to himself, “Wait a minute! I am both politically irritated with where this is going, and I am going to go check his citations for accuracy.”

            2. Bellesiles energized this professional consensus by attempting to play “the professors against the NRA in a high-wire act of arrogant bravado.”[7] For instance, he replied to Heston’s criticism by telling the actor to earn a Ph.D. before criticizing the work of scholars.[8] He pointed out that Cramer was “a long time advocate of unrestricted gun ownership” while he himself was a simple scholar who had “certain obligations of accuracy that transcend current political benefit.”[9] After Bellesiles claimed he had been flooded by hate mail, both the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians endorsed a resolution condemning the alleged harassment.[10] As Hoffer later wrote, Bellesiles was convinced that whether the entire profession agreed with “his stance on gun ownership (and I suspect most did), surely academic historians would not let their expertise be impugned by a rank and partisan amateur like Cramer.” [11]

              Hmmm, where have we seen that tactic used before…

              “I have a PhD so how dare you question my authority, peasant?!”

              1. I looked at the Wiki to see if anything happened since I last heard about the Bellesiles thing. This shit is gold:

                “In 2003, Arming America was republished in a revised and amended edition by Soft Skull Press.”

                1. The b.s. book about GWB, Fortunate Son, was also republished after being discredited. And of course The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is still in print.

              2. Elitism, the last bastion of a cornered and unrepentant narcissist. An official, and very public cashiering at the hands of the university’s administration, followed by a campus security escort off school grounds would have been the appropriate icing for that frauds cake…

          3. Does the name Michael Bellesiles ring a bell?

            Ring a bell? He’s my go-to guy for fake data.

  24. “People who offer meals to the public for money…need permits”

    Why does all government “protection” always look like protecting vested interests?

  25. “You need some sort of power to insure the property rights of individuals are protected.”

    Government is incapable of doing this, and has proven so throughout history. The individual is the best defender of their liberty. Protection through insurance companies, or other agreements with neighbors or whatever agreement one wishes to come up with to best protect their property is up to them.

    If you wish to lie to yourself and believe the fantasy that “if only the right person were elected” will our liberties be protected, do so on your own. But to desire a monopoly that would be the sole arbiter of force (the government), and support its being forces others into slavery. Therefore one can’t say they support liberty if they espouse such things. They would only be lying to themselves and others, which is dangerous to the natural rights that are freedom and liberty.

    Folks bring up warring factions and so on, yet ignore the violence of their very own govt and the chaos that surrounds them. Free individuals would face consequences for their actions. If someone wants to break in another’s home, or rob them, there would be no politician to protect the thief. The robber might meet Smith and Wesson, or Kujo. Weighing their options, they would be wise to choose to engage in trade, which is far easier than war.

    1. Weighing their options, they would be wise to choose to engage in trade, which is far easier than war.

      Or they organize, for organized violence (government) will always overcome the individual. Plunder is far easier than trade.

      1. Why is it you think they don’t want individuals owning “assault weapons”? That is a force multiplier against large groups that wish to violate another’s liberty. The sight of a weapon scares the shot out of some folks. So are they ready to pick it up and kill peaceful individuals that wish to be free? They would face consequences for their desires and would think it over many times. The only reason they advocate theft and violence is because they are shielded from the consequences of their actions.

        Take our bully country for instance. Why do other countries seek nukes? It is a force multiplier and insurance against a larger country and their attempts at aggressing against them.

        I’d rather be free, then be a defenseless slave. Come and plunder me motherfucker. That would be the battle call for many. If you can’t fight, I can teach you but I have to charge. :0)

    2. The robber might meet Smith and Wesson, or Kujo.

      Here in America, for many property crimes there is no other recourse. Especially those involving relatively small damages. Ever hear of the police solving a break-in of a parked car?

      1. Nope, but I’ve seen people defend their property to include their parked car. Private investigative services would be far more efficient than socialist government ones.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.