Food Policy

Will Austin Proposal to 'Control' Barbecue Cause Beloved Food Scene to Go Up in Smoke?

Poorly thought-out rules against odors, emissions could devastate restaurants, food trucks.

|

Credit: CarlosPacheco / photo on flickr

Earlier this month, the city council in Austin, Tex. took up "the smell of barbecue and a proposal to control it," reports the New York Times, "in response to some citizen complaints."

If that sounds ominous—and not just a reporter blowin' smoke—that's because it is.

Daniel Vaughn, who writes for Texas Monthly and serves as the country's only "barbecue editor," painted a bleak picture of the proposed rules in a piece he wrote in March, writing that the rules could force Austin barbecue joints to leave the city in droves.

Indeed, some of the city's best barbecue spots warn the proposal could bring about a doomsday scenario for Austin.

"If this resolution passes, we would be forced to close or move," owner Aaron Franklin of Franklin Barbecue, widely considered to be the Austin's best, told the food website Eater. "It would destroy Austin barbecue."

This matters. Austin is known for its barbecue. On my most recent trip to the city—this past fall to attend the fantastic Austin City Limits Music Festival—I sampled some of the city's best barbecue, at La Barbecue. And I drove down to Lockhart, about an hour outside of Austin, to eat at Kreuz Market, home to what many believe is the best barbecue in the world. (For what it's worth, I'd go a step further and say that I've never eaten a better piece of meat of any sort than the brisket I pawed into my maw at Kreuz's.)

One underreported fact of the Austin resolution—the Times story failed to mention it, for example—is that it targets not just the city's wildly popular barbecue restaurants but that other leading symbol of the greatness of Austin's food scene: the city's food trucks. In fact, the resolution's stated purpose is "to mitigate the effects of smoke emissions from restaurants and mobile food vendors near residentially zoned areas" (emphasis mine).

Austin isn't the first city to take issue with food smoke and odors. In 2013, Irwindale, California, officials came close to forcing that city's best known employer, Huy Fong Foods, maker of Sriracha Rooster Sauce, to skip town over complaints alleging the smell of hot peppers used to make Sriracha constituted a public nuisance. (Ironically, Texas lawmakers rolled out the red carpet to try to lure Huy Fong.) Eventually, Irwindale backed down.

Several years ago, a giant Washington, D.C., law firm sued a burger restaurant that shared a building with the firm. A judge forced the burger restaurant, Rogue States, to close thanks to wafting burger odors.

The Sriracha and Rogue States examples highlight the difference between public and private nuisance law.

"In general, a private nuisance refers to an activity that does not involve physical trespass, but nevertheless interferes with an individual's reasonable use or enjoyment of his or her property," reads a 2000 Penn State law school publication. "A public nuisance is an activity that threatens the public health, safety or welfare, or does damage to community resources."

In the former case, a resident claiming a violation would typically sue the alleged violator. In the latter case, a city might sue (as in the case of Huy Fong) or pass a law (as Austin may do).

Austin's "proposal to control" barbecue would wrongly turn what might be one or two cases of private nuisance issue into pervasive issue of public nuisance. There are alternatives to laws, including lawsuits—like the asinine one that forced Rogue States to close.

Even if I don't like the results of the Rogue States case, a lawsuit mostly impacts just two parties. A bad law impacts everyone, something Texas Monthly's Vaughn noted in his piece, calling barbecue smoke a "hyper-local issue [that] could potentially affect businesses citywide."

Even better than laws and lawsuits, though, might be a whiff of common sense and a pause to let the smoke clear. Prof. Ernesto Hernandez of Chapman University Law School—food law expert, native of San Antonio, University of Texas-Austin graduate, and self-described "traveler of the Texas Barbecue Belt"—agrees.

"If olfactory issues are really a concern, and not just NIMBYism, then the city should be more transparent and fair," Hernandez told me in an email this week. "With public hearings, it can listen to restaurants and residents. Restaurants want to be good neighbors and will often cooperate, but that is not always consistent with NIMBYism."

Aaron Franklin echoes Hernandez.

"Our smokers are on the second floor so the smell dissipates before it drifts down, and we make sure our fires have a complete combustion so you don't get that gross-smelling creosote," Franklin told the Times. "And we make sure kids in the neighborhood get food for their birthday parties—so the positive emotional associations with the smell of his barbecue get imprinted early."

Sounds smart. Who could have a beef with that?

Advertisement

NEXT: Beer Cocktail Bans and Other Stupid Booze Laws

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. Coase payments in brisket and ribs?

    1. Came in to make a Coase comment, but yours is better.

      1. No, a Coase comment would be to counter-insult a bad article, which this was not.

  2. Economic suicide, one regulation at a time.

  3. Monsters. BBQ is as Texan as ten gallon hats and the Alamo. Fk the Austin city council.

    1. “Austin, Texas” has become an oxymoron. Please cease using the two words together.

  4. Ingrates. I’d wear barbecue smoke cologne if I could fine some.

    1. Unintended pun; I meant -find- some.

    2. http://www.porkbarrelbbqstore……ologne-que

      There you go.

      1. My imaginary girlfriend thanks you!! The real life ones, not so much…

  5. As an ex-Memphian I should point out that he is wrong when he says Texas BBQ is the best. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he just doesn’t know better.

    Now if he had made this claim about Kansas City BBQ, then I would have just called him retarded.

    And since when to BBQ joints smell bad? There was one near Memphis State that caused me to decoy right in many times because it smelled so good as I walked past.

    1. North Carolina BBQ isn’t even worth mentioning.

      1. Kiss my grill-fired, Carolina-sweet-sauce-marinated ass.

      2. I thought NC BBQ was just an oxymoron.

      3. Obligatory Owensboro BBQ mention here, just to give mutton its due.

        1. Sheep: Not just for fucking anymore.

          1. Pushing them towards a grill works better than a cliff.

      4. Blasphemy! From a pope, no less.

    2. And since when to BBQ joints smell bad?

      Since they started using vegetable fats instead of beef tallow?

      1. Who adds fat when barbecuing?

    3. There was one near Memphis State that caused me to decoy right in many times

      So you had to take off the pointy hat and vestments in favor of a t-shirt and jeans?

      1. Dockers. Our papal ass is too wide to look good in jeans anymore. We now wear loose fit dockers pants in order to keep the giggling from the College of Cardinals to a minimum.

        1. “We now wear loose fit dockers pants-”

          Or as my friends called them “Levi’s Porkers”.

    4. And I drove down to Lockhart, about an hour outside of Austin, to eat at Kreuz Market, home to what many believe is the best barbecue in the world.

      Not what he wrote. That aside, BBQ (and food in general) hyperbole is a widespread phenomena and getting your back up about what someone says about any particular food item is kinda silly.

      As a former IT road warrior I was fortunate to be able to eat in most states in the union over the years and develop an appreciation for regional (and even local) cuisines and variations of that cuisine. I’ve eaten NC Q (eastern and western), Memphis Q, Kansas City Q (I am not a sweet, sticky, sauce fan), California Q (tri-tip!). I’ve had shitty Q in Texas that I wouldn’t feed to my dog and incredible Q in other states that I would drive 3 days to eat for lunch.

      I smoke and grill my own in my backyard (I’ve got a Post Oak guy) and I’ve done everything from the traditional Texas brisket to pulled pork to Baltimore Pit Beef to Memphis-style ribs to Cali tri-tip. Bottom line, I love good Q and I don’t care where it’s “from”.

      1. Leon’s Pig Pen, in Baltimore. If you dare.

      2. Damn, this thread’s giving me an appetite, and Henley doesn’t have vapes in savory flavors, only sweet stuff.

        Here’s my recipe for a sauce/relish that goes with any type of meat, whether poultry, fish, 4-footed farm mammal, and probably frog & reptile, any way you cook the meat.

        Mince red radishes & garlic, about 1 clove to each radish. The garlic can be crushed instead, but the radishes must be hand-minced?something about the release of juices from the cut surfaces rather than crushed cells. Mix with enough mayonnaise (regular or low-fat, but not fat-free) to coat. Then let it sit in the refrigerator for the desired length of time. After an hour it’s relish-like & fairly mild; after overnight, it’s saucy & strong. Eat with cooked meat on plate or sandwich. Produces gas from both ends of you, so watch out.

        1. I am so going to make that and consume it tomorrow. Chances are I’ll be sentenced to the guest room if the ass is truly stank, but oh well.

        2. mayonaisse on ribs? you out of your goddamned cracker ass mind?

          1. By the time the radishes & garlic are done w it, you won’t recognize it as mayonnaise. Use only enough mayo to give the other ingredients a thin fatty coat.

            People eat cole slaw w ribs, and most cole slaws have mayonnaise, but it’s not like the cole is swimming in it.

      3. Pit beef is not barbecue. Pit beef is just top round stuck on a grill. Save some time and find an Arby’s.

        Two day’s late, but I got triggered.

    5. Great, a BBQ debate. Next can we discuss which color is best? Important stuff.

      1. Next can we discuss which color is best?

        BRITISH RACING GREEN #2 IS THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE ANSWER.

        1. Bleu de France biotch.

        2. Always bet on black.

      2. Great, a BBQ debate. Next can we discuss which color is best? Important stuff.

        Throw in abortion and circumcision, and have Richman write it up, and I’m fuckin’ there.

        1. What about deep dish pizza and the A in AGW?

          BLUE IS THE PROPER ANSWER, MOTHERFUCKER!

    6. Ahh yes…Memphis BBQ. mustard & vinegar base sauces or that disgusting dry rub at the Voo Doo. Who wouldn’t want to eat that crap.

      1. I remember my first (and only) trip to Charlie Vergos’. I thought someone was punking me. Fuck Rendezvous. Fuck Beale Street. Fuck The Peabody. Especially Fuck Marc Cohn and that goofy ‘Walking in Memphis’ shit-stain of a song. Fuck Memphis, period.

        But nobody fucks with Elvis.

    7. And since when to BBQ joints smell bad? There was one near Memphis State that caused me to decoy right in many times because it smelled so good as I walked past.

      That’s like when I worked at a place that shared an industrial park with Flavors & Fragrance Mfg., Inc. I used to walk by there for “dessert” after lunch sometimes; smelled like candy! I also enjoy it here when the wind’s from the E in the early AM, for the exhaust from the Old London plant, which smells like toast; I’m afraid they may have moved away recently, though, as both sides of the tracks have had other biz move in. Stella d’Oro was great from the Major Deegan Expwy. until they moved.

      That’s the bitch about differential valu’n: To most people, music, perfume, baking, or barbecue is a positive externality, but to a few (especially under some circs, such as if the music coincides with your sleeping time) it can be negative.

      1. Because people have wildly different preferences, those preferences should be served by markets, not by government mandates. Some HOAs may allow BBQ, others may not, and you pick the one you like.

    8. Having lived in both Texas and west Tennessee, I’d say you’re about half right. Memphis has the best pork barbecue. Texas has the best beef barbecue.

      Texas BBQ sausage here is best, too, but that’s just because of the Czech and German influence rather than the BBQ technique.

    9. In Texas we BBQ BEEF!!! We leave pork for things it’s good at….like bacon! lol

    10. I find your comment about KC BBQ offensive (and totally wrong), and will lobby Reason to place a “trigger warning” before any such future comments.

    11. Mmmmm Memphis BBQ. Texas BBQ is great, but Memphis reigns.

    12. KC BBQ is the best by far. Call me an idiot if you wish.

  6. Food fraud

    Non-Icelandic skyr producer claims to be icelandic, gets called on it.

  7. Banning barbecue in Texas, just…. wow. It takes a special kind of stupid to be a leftist.

    Hey Austin, are you still happy about giving these alfalfa-sprout special snowflake types control of your city?

    1. That’s the danger with Progressism.

      At first it seems harmless – all get are quirky people riding tandem bikes in costumes covered in electric lights and the smell of patchouli everywhere.

      But, soon, the ones that just want to be dirty hippies and eat granola in peace are joined by their cousins – the power-hungry ones.

      1. Maybe we could earn a few bucks by making ‘Keep Austin Free’ t-shirts?

  8. Clear evidence that liberals work every day to fuck up whatever locale they alight upon…

  9. Children’s “rights” groups who actually hate children, bolume 714345874820 (Warning: link is to a 4.8MB, 5 min MP3)

    Polish children’s “rights” groups want to ban children from accompanying their parents on hunts. The arguments are incredibly derpy. Do these folks ever think about how children on farms in previous generations survived and grew up to become well-adjusted adults? Do they ever think about children going fishing?

    The best bit of derp might be at the end, where somebody whines that most of the parliamentary committe that voted against their wishes are hunters themselves. Because non-hunters are experts on hunting, of course.

    1. If you want to play streaming audio rather than download the file, go here. Note the incredibly unbiased headline, “Hunters writing their own laws in Poland”.

    2. OMFG! Didn’t make it to the halfway point.

      Everyone has something they dislike. Assholes feel the need to enshrine their dislike in prohibition, as a law justifies their position. There is always a politician ready to support the cause, any cause, to buy that vote.

      “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild,1 and government to gain ground.” – TJ

      1. And these children’s “rights” groups teach the children the horrible lesson that it’s somehow virtuous to use the State to bully people doing things you don’t like.

        1. As has been said many times, they use the state to bully people because they don’t have the stones to bully them in person.

          I can only think of my reaction if some busybody showed up when my boys and I were out hunting birds and called me a monster.

          1. Something something Fargo something something woodchipper…

      2. “There is always a politician ready to support the cause, any cause, to buy that vote.”

        No, not really. How many are ready to support libertarian solutions and buy our vote? It is only in safe districts where a politician can afford to pander to outr? views like banning bbq restaurants. The progs have certain pockets of the country where they can advance crap like this (as do socons) and it is our job to organize the opposition to laugh these enslavers out of town.

        1. How many are ready to support libertarian solutions and buy our vote?

          All, if the price is right. If that weren’t the case, every democratic polity would be instantly totalitarian, because there’d be no liberty interest to balance the craving for oppression.

    3. Related: Gun banners wear their ignorance of all things related to guns with pride. Technology, constitutional law, culture, you name it. They don’t know and they don’t want to know. They know you shouldn’t have one, and that’s enough.

  10. Hi Baylee,

    I think I’m in your corner on this one, but those people who don’t like the smell of BBQ should be able to sue, right? Because I’ve heard that’s the libertarian solution to just about everything and makes the fact that you got testicular cancer from your local DOW chemical plant a-ok.

    1. Baylen… Jesus, this free market spell checker.

      1. Yeah, it can’t even capitalize your handle. Really sucks. I’d ask for my money back, of course by passing a law or siccing your DA on them.

        1. You know who made a damn good spell checker? The Soviet Union. However many people they murdered to make it, it was worth it.

          1. He misspelled gulag.

        2. It worked for ee cummings.

          1. You, sir, are no ee cummings.

          2. american socialist|5.9.15 @ 8:48AM|#
            “It worked for ee cummings.”

            Stupidity works for you!

        3. Yeah, it can’t even capitalize your handle.

          Socialists are opposed to capital.

          1. Touche!

        4. Playing games with capitalization is his way of showing how progressive and superior he is. He wants to signal that he can think for himself! He can de-capitalize “American” and express his disapproval of America in a subtle way.

          1. He put a great deal of work into that handle, and that is really the important thing.

          2. Or he’s too lazy to hit the shift key.

    2. You certainly could sue, but it’d be pretty hard to prove damages from a smell you dislike. So your point is moot, as I’m sure you could have figured out if you weren’t trying to be all clever. On the other hand, if you could show harm from such smoke, as you could from your local Dow chemical plant spewing toxins, you could indeed win a lawsuit. I’m not aware of any evidence that the smell of barbecue causes anything other than possibly a propensity toward obesity.

      1. I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand…

        http://www.cancer.gov/cancerto…..fact-sheet

        1. I would. That page concerns the cooked meat itself, not its aroma. Also, the doses of the chemicals in question are ridiculously high, far higher than any human could consume. So there’s not evidence. Your link adds nothing to the discussion. Try again.

          1. Plus it’s .gov and therefore almost certainly full of lies.

    3. I think I’m in your corner on this one, but those people who don’t like the smell of BBQ should be able to sue, right? Because I’ve heard that’s the libertarian solution to just about everything

      Correct.

      and makes the fact that you got testicular cancer from your local DOW chemical plant a-ok

      Actually, we prefer lawsuits precisely because that’s not “a-ok”. We don’t want companies to be able to get license to pollute courtesy of government regulators, we want them to pay for the actual harm they cause.

      1. But there’s a problem that’s been pointed out by many free-market economists in cases like this, which is the ability of the few to extract enormous rents at the expense of the many. I’m afraid I have to side w them (e.g. Coase, Baumol) rather than w Rothbard et al., in preferring a type of eminent domain that allows a collectively-determined compensation rather than absolute property rights of a fixed, 1-size-fits-all kind. The Chicago school also took into acc’t the often very significant costs of information (i.e. learning just who is harming whom, & to what degree) in preferring the collective solution. There was a good explanation of all this in Nomos magazine decades ago, summarizing a lot of technical econ stuff.

        Lawsuits w individual parties or class actions work well for some situations but not others. In the case at hand, all it’d take would be a few malcontents claiming esthetic damage from barbecue fumes to raise the cost a lot to the many who enjoy barbecue. Once people know they can collect damages for barbecue odor, it pays for all those in the vicinity to lie & say they’re offended even if hardly any actually are. How’s a jury to know if they’re lying?

        1. But there’s a problem that’s been pointed out by many free-market economists

          Really? Like who?

          in cases like this, which is the ability of the few to extract enormous rents at the expense of the many.

          Really? Where does that happen in a free market?

          Lawsuits w individual parties or class actions work well for some situations but not others.

          Who said anything about lawsuits? “Paying for the actual harm the cause” doesn’t involve any lawsuits, it involves a simple business transaction.

          In the case at hand, all it’d take would be a few malcontents claiming esthetic damage from barbecue fumes to raise the cost a lot to the many who enjoy barbecue.

          You argue like a typical progressive and statist: “the majority/experts have determined that X doesn’t impose too much harm on minority Y, therefore, we allow X throughout the land”.

          1. Like who? I mentioned Coase & Baumol, how many do you need?

            Paying the actual harm is very costly when you factor in information costs, plus the difficulty in ascertaining the harm when it’s in people’s heads.

            1. Like who? I mentioned Coase & Baumol, how many do you need?

              I don’t see how your statment But there’s a problem that’s been pointed out by many free-market economists in cases like this, which is the ability of the few to extract enormous rents at the expense of the many. follows from either economist’s work.

              Paying the actual harm is very costly when you factor in information costs, plus the difficulty in ascertaining the harm when it’s in people’s heads.

              That’s kind of like saying “you can never have an iPhone because the transaction costs of buying all the parts would be way too high”. It makes no sense, because these kinds of costs are not paid between individuals, they are paid between HOAs, and they don’t involve lawsuits.

        2. Once people know they can collect damages for barbecue odor, it pays for all those in the vicinity to lie & say they’re offended even if hardly any actually are. How’s a jury to know if they’re lying?

          The question of whether they are lying arises in a statist society,. In fact, in a libertarian free-market based society, the person imposing the BBQ smell on others will end up paying a tiny, market determined price for infringing on other people’s property rights (through mechanisms like which HOA they become a member of).

          The statist solution is to say that you shouldn’t pay even that tiny price since it’s they have determined that no reasonable person could object. The problem with that is that to some people (like this crazy anti-BBQ crusader), the price is actually high, so they have a strong incentive to lobby against you, and they often win.

          1. The market-determined price would be well above what would be utility-efficient, because of geographic consider’ns. The people next door would hold the BBQ up for much more than their actual harm, because they could.

            1. You’re thinking of libertarian societies as a whole bunch of individuals resolving their differences in court; that’s not how it works. As I was saying, these issues get resolved regionally, at the level of private HOAs. That is, people living next door to each other would be resolving the issue of BBQs (and a thousand other little issues) as part of their choice of where to live.

    4. Baylen specifically addresses your question in the article.

    5. those people who don’t like the smell of BBQ should be able to sue, right?

      Yes, they should be able to sue, and a jury should be able to tell them to fuck off, too.

      Now run along to your commie rat bastard sniveling club meeting.

      -jcr

      1. those people who don’t like the smell of BBQ should be able to sue, right?

        Unless here is a right not to smell BBQ, then no, they shouldn’t.

        Unless they have suffered identifiable damages, then no, they shouldn’t.

        And I don’t believe people should be able to bring frivolous suits when their rights haven’t been violated and they haven’t suffered any damages, either. I suppose you can’t stop them from filing suit, but it should be dismissed immediately, and the defendant should be able to collect damages from the plaintiffs and their attorneys. Because beating even a frivolous suit ain’t cheap.

        1. So if my neighbor in a residential area is playing loud rock music all night, seven days a week, 365 days a year, I have no recourse in the courts?

          1. Not being able to sleep constitutes damage. You can point to physical and mental harm. Even moreso if you work during the day.

    6. “I think I’m in your corner on this one, but those people who don’t like the smell of BBQ should be able to sue, right? Because I’ve heard that’s the libertarian solution to just about everything and makes the fact that you got testicular cancer from your local DOW chemical plant a-ok.”

      Libertarians would not support shutting down these BBQ joints for offensive odor. They DO support customers boycotting these establishments to drive them out of business to put an end to the smoke. If the market moved in that direction, the bbq places would succumb to public demand without government intervention.

      You obviously have a weak (and intentionally obtuse) grasp of anything libertarian, which enables you to construct a lot of strawmen. It’s impossible for you to engage in any intellectually honest debate. “Gee you guys want companies to do whatever they want even if they poison us”. You only make yourself look stupid with this sort of juvenile talking point.

      Stalin was a noted central planner and modern progressives draw inspiration from commie icons and ideology. So there it is.

  11. Kreuz’s brisket…

    I’ll be in my bunk.

    (It is THAT good)

  12. Fuck, I went searching for a link to Minneapolis’ annual freak out about back yard fires and found this thread.

    http://forums.e-democracy.org/…..X11jwx8e1m

    I swear the original poster is twin sisters with the crazy emf teacher from the story yesterday.

    Her main beef is that her neighborhood is always foggy because of all the backyard fires and it makes her sick. In one of the best posts the OP complains about the smoke and in the same sentence admits she couldn’t find any fires.

    So Rachel, you’re a neighbor of mine, you’re saying that there’s no place for
    public debate and public policy around wood burning at all? Then why have any
    sort of rules?

    Last weekend, when I couldn’t breathe because of the concentration of wood
    smoke in our neighborhood, I couldn’t find the fires in my immediate neighbors’
    yards. Are you saying I should patrol the entire neighborhood looking for the
    offenders?

    This shit reminds me why I will never live in the city.

    1. the concentration of wood
      smoke in our neighborhood

      This is what heaven smells like.

  13. Fuck, I went searching for a link to Minneapolis’ annual freak out about back yard fires and found this thread.

    http://forums.e-democracy.org/…..X11jwx8e1m

    I swear the original poster is twin sisters with the crazy emf teacher from the story yesterday.

    Her main beef is that her neighborhood is always foggy because of all the backyard fires and it makes her sick. In one of the best posts the OP complains about the smoke and in the same sentence admits she couldn’t find any fires.

    So Rachel, you’re a neighbor of mine, you’re saying that there’s no place for
    public debate and public policy around wood burning at all? Then why have any
    sort of rules?

    Last weekend, when I couldn’t breathe because of the concentration of wood
    smoke in our neighborhood, I couldn’t find the fires in my immediate neighbors’
    yards. Are you saying I should patrol the entire neighborhood looking for the
    offenders?

    This shit reminds me why I will never live in the city.

    1. I also love the fact that poor Andrew posted this:

      Please tell me you are kidding. It would royally suck if a tradition dating
      back to our ancestors sitting in caves and one of the best parts about this
      time of year was ruined by a few complainers.

      If you want to reduce pollution, replace coal plants with a green source.

      And in the very next post, the moderator warns him to keep it civil. Holy fuck, how sensitive the Mpls proggies are that they curl up in the face of such a blistering attack.

      1. Well, ya know, Minnesota nice an’ allat…

    2. They think they can pay for a stadium with electronic pull-tabs.

  14. If any city is going to willingly shoot itself in the head over something stupid like this it will be Austin. Once the heart of Texas has been taken over by transplants from California. Unfortunately they brought their progressive ideology and stupidity with them.

    1. “If any city is going to willingly shoot itself in the head over something stupid like this it will be Austin.

      Oh, no no, my fellow Austinites would never shoot themselves in the head, because guns are bad, mmm-kay.

      One of the more interesting days of my life was strolling around downtown Austin with a bunch of stoned, pirate-headband-wearing, gun-totin aficianadoes, a loaded Benelli camo shotgun in my arms, and watching the proggies in restaurants on our route diving for their cellphones to call the cops, not believing that that was legal.

      1. How difficult would it be to put a fence around Austin and turn it into a proggie roach motel?

        “Proggies check in but they don’t check out.”

        1. I’d prefer the nuke it from orbit option.

          1. It is the only way to be sure.

          2. neutron bomb; leave the buildings,get rid of the pests.

  15. The NYT article doesn’t contain any info on what the law actually says or its likelihood of passing, so the whole discussion seems fairly pointless.

    However, I did find the link to the Nasal Ranger Field Olfactometer very interesting. Definitely check out the product brochure, which shows a picture of a guy using it…. it looks like a telescope that you stick your nose into instead of your eyes.

    1. it looks like a telescope that you stick your nose into instead of your eyes.

      Futurama was right!

      1. Good news!
        http://comedycentral.mtvnimage…..0x360.jpg?

  16. I don’t get something. We always hear how bad ass Texas (and Alberta who recently incredibly voted socialists into power) are. Gun-totin’ don’t mess with us and ever so-growing because people are fleeing prog hell holes and all that.

    YET. The people of Austin, governed I presumed by Austinians (?), actually proposed something that runs against their own culinary identity? It’s like asking Naples to stop making wood-oven pizzas or something along those lines. I further assume Austin has been making BBQ for a long time and so why is it a problem all of a sudden? It makes no sense Cui bono here?

    Also. Austin wouldn’t be a place where progs have been locating to?

    1. ever so-growing because people are fleeing prog hell holes and all that.

      There’s the problem. They flee the effects of prog politics and then vote for the same prog politics in their new state. It’s happening to a far greater degree in NH, CO, and VA due to their smaller population (though TX also has to deal with the illegals voting prog too). We in the industry call it bluebonic plague.

      1. So. Why are they managing to get their way?

        1. They didn’t get their way, at least not yet. The rule was only proposed, not passed, and the NYT article makes it sound like there’s a lot of opposition.

          1. Ah. You answered the question below.

        2. I mean, if BBQing is ingrained into the fabric of Texas culture you would think the locals ( majority) would be able to repulse this; even laugh it off.

          Instead, their OWN politicians are actually entertaining the idea.

          1. I think assholes like this are the majority in Austin.

          2. What you have here is the equivalent of some junior congressman from Mississippi that no-one has ever heard of introduce a bill entitled “The Save America By Executing barack Obama Act of 2015.” Nice fodder for people like Linnekin who are selling articles and getting paid for “activism,” but not actually anything that’s ever going to happen.

          3. Which means the sooner Texas implements the “New Texas” Constitution that allows for the beating and killing of politicians, the better.

        3. ‘Cause you can’t fix stupid and stupid is like cancer.

      2. NH? Really? Didn’t know this — does that mean the Free State Project is going to need more immigrants?

        1. According to a show I listen to out of Boston is Massachusetts residents are escaping that state to go to NH only to import the very exact mentality they were fleeing. Much to the misery of NH or Maine I reckon.

        2. In the absence of force, actions based on economic benefit (progs moving from MA) always overwhelm actions based on ideology (the FSP). This principle is what keeps free market societies stable; unfortunately in this case it also works against free markets.

          Reason #1 why NH was a terrible choice for the FSP. It was only a matter of time till Massholes started leaking over the Merrimack River.

  17. The 7 Day Millionaire is THE REAL DEAL. Don’t blow this off. You’re minutes away from SERIOUS MONEY. Check this out ?

    ……………. w?w?w.W?o?r?k?4?h?o?u?r.Co?m

  18. Powerline’s Week in Pictures is pretty funny this week:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/a…..dition.php

  19. Austin is not “known for its BBQ”, it’s known for being a lefty paradise, utterly self-absorbed, and for horrible traffic.

    Lockhart is generally accepted as the BBQ capital of Texas and sits at the mid-point of the BBQ Belt.

    Kruez is easily top 5 in the state but I go for the sausage over the brisket. For brisket I’m a Louie Mueller fan all the way – where Aaron Franklin learned his craft – in Taylor. Get there early, just like Snow’s BBQ, when the meat is gone you’re going away hungry…in which case swing on down to Luling and City Market or just a bit further south to Gonzales to Gonzales Food Market for some lamb ribs. For a more scenic trip, head on up to Llano to Cooper’s and top off your Q with some of their blackberry cobbler with vanilla ice cream.

    1. “Austin is not “known for its BBQ”, it’s known for being a lefty paradise”

      My guess is that the people who complained are vegetarians.

      I think it’s likely that they’re trying to drive BBQ restaurants out of the city.

      On purpose.

      1. Cite needed?

        I was a California transplant to Austin. And a vegetarian. I can’t remember whining about BBQ joints, demanding progressive governance, or really anything beyond scoring amazing weed, seeing fabulous musicians, and devouring migas.

        1. “My guess is that the people who complained are vegetarians.”

          Do I have to cite my guesses now?

          My hunch is based on watching animal rights advocates, whom I’ve known, hung out with, and worked with in a non-animal rights, professional capacity.

          This is the way they get shit done. If you told people you wanted to shut down the restaurant to strike a blow for animal rights, nobody would pay any attention. So, it’s about the smell, doncha know.

          Do I know this to be a fact?

          No.

          But if I see this happening in Berkeley, CA, Asheville, NC, or Austin, Texas, I start making educated guesses, yeah.

          1. Dude, your guesses must be ‘peer reviewed’ by a consensus of scientists.

            1. Or be based on actually knowing something. Spouting off about something where your knowledge and experience is ZERO makes one look like a moron. It is the exact opposite of an “educated guess.”

              1. Or be based on actually knowing something.

                Like “watching animal rights advocates, whom I’ve known, hung out with, and worked with in a non-animal rights, professional capacity”?

                1. They’re home-grown, by and large, not California transplants. All I did was live there and immerse myself in the food, art, and music culture (all stuffed with progs), so what the hell do I know about their demographics?

              2. Speculating that animal rights interests in a progressive enclave might be gaming the system to push for animal rights actually isn’t that far out there.

                The California Dairy Council ran ads claiming that “Great milk/cheese comes from happy cows, and happy cows come from California”.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERrjAoY3BSM

                PETA sued the California Dairy Council for false advertising–claiming that California’s cows aren’t really happy. As important as the issue of false advertising is, I’m gonna go out on a limb and speculate that PETA’s real interest was in the cows–rather than truth in advertising.

                This is out of their standard bag of tricks.

                Maybe I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong before. I’m sure I’ll be wrong again, but I’m not making any scientific claims.

                Incidentally, speculating that gay rights activists might be behind the people suing cake makers for turning away gay marriage business isn’t moronic or spouting off either.

                And speculating about what something might mean or guessing about what really is going on isn’t out of place…on an opinion site in an interwebs forum. I’m not making any scientific claims here! I’m just guessing.

                P.S. http://www.foodrepublic.com/20…..-austin-te

                1. I had the same thought, Ken.

                2. Why would animal rights activists be targeting like 1% of meat-serving restaurants? This argument can’t be slippery sloped to apply to other restaurants, let alone grocery stores where far more meat is sold.

                  1. Don’t expect activists to be rational, but it could be something like “The smell of BBQ lures people into eating meat, so if we can stop the smell, fewer people will be tempted.”

                    1. BBQ places give off smoke and smell like other restaurants don’t.

                      Maybe they’re making an issue about BBQ becasue they can leverage that smoke and smell issue. Low hanging fruit.

                      Maybe they go after other restaurants for other things.

                      http://americanradioworks.publ…../egg5.html

                      Maybe these folks aren’t about animal rights at all.

                      I don’t know for sure.

                    2. The councilman (or whatever) behind this claims he eats BBQ every week, I discovered.

      2. This was my confusion – aren’t Texans the ones who have that imitation BBQ made out of cows instead of pigs as nature and nature’s god intended? I just assumed it was the Muslims complaining about being subjected to the smell of pork, or more likely the SJW’s who have taken it upon themselves to be outraged on behalf of the poor benighted Mohammadeen. (Jews, of course, can just go fuck themselves with a pork chop as far as the SJW’s are concerned.)

    2. Come to think of it, Elgin IS known for its BBQ… enuf for many of us “crosstown traffic” to drive 20 mi. to the Crosstown BBQ for brisket and ribs. Ah shore hope they don’t ban pickups and motorcycles too. There’s also Poke-e Joe’s BBQ in Round Rock, and they’re even LP-friendly!

  20. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

  21. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

  22. So, while I certainly think that BBQs are nice and all that, in the end, you have to agree with your neighbors on what goes in the air somehow.

    From a libertarian point of view, letting BBQ smoke drift into someone else’s yard is, a priori, an infringement on their property rights. Where libertarians differ is that this would be handled through CC&Rs;, not government regulations. But the end result is not all that different: in some regions, people agree that BBQs are OK, in others, they are prohibited.

    1. an infringement on their property rights

      Possibly, but not necessarily. The rights could be defined either way. In a transaction-cost free situation, it wouldnt even matter which way it was defined.

    2. “From a libertarian point of view, letting BBQ smoke drift into someone else’s yard is, a priori, an infringement on their property rights.”

      Adam Smith disagrees.

      His famous example had it that our legitimate rights sometimes overlap and contradict with each other. A man is walking on his property from his front door to the street, when suddenly a cinder from his neighbor’s chimney lands on his newly laundered shirt. Who should be responsible for the cleaning bill?

      Yes, his neighbor’s cinder landed on his property and landed on his shirt, but doesn’t his neighbor also have the right to burn coal to keep warm during the winter? Are we really going to tell people that they can’t burn coal in their own homes to warm their own houses–because the cinders might land on someone else’s property?

      Adam Smith saw a legitimate role for government in cases where our rights overlap and conflict with each other. And I see it that way, too. I’ll say this: a society in which no one is free to do anything unless it doesn’t adversely effect anyone else is a totalitarian society. I’m certainly not prepared to say unequivocally that people aren’t free to use their own property to BBQ–because someone else might smell it.

      1. Like I said above, I suspect lefty vegans and animal rights activists are using this issue to try to drive BBQ restaurants out of business in a progressive enclave. But just because BBQ places’ rights overlap and conflict with those of people who don’t like the smell doesn’t necessarily mean that the rights of people who don’t like the smell of BBQ should predominate.

        1. I suspect lefty vegans and animal rights activists are using this issue to try to drive BBQ restaurants out of business in a progressive enclave.

          Huh? The vast majority of restaurants serving meat are not BBQs. Why would they specifically target them?

          1. Why did Saddam Hussein refuse to allow in weapons inspectors and let them see whatever they wanted–when he didn’t have any WMD (to speak of) and the alternative was being bombed, invaded, and occupied by the United States and ultimately being executed?

            Maybe people don’t always do what’s in their own best interests?

            Maybe only BBQ restaurants have the smell and smoke excuse to get traction on?

            You guys are really wrapped up in whether the vegans are behind this. It’s just speculation on my part!. Even if they are, I’m not sure they should lose just becasue of that. I was just trying to point out that people can and do use this kind of thinking to inflict their personal opinions on us under the cover of proper government.

            If the guy in Adam Smith’s day is suing his neighbor for the cleaning bill on his shirt–because he’s concerned about global warming–that shouldn’t change his case any. Either his neighbor is rightly responsible for the cleaning bill, or the shirt owner assumed the risk when he walked outside in a city where people depend on burning coal to keep their homes warm. My point was that if we are in a totalitarian society if we only look at one side of these kinds of issues.

            1. I think Ken has hit this one out of the park.

              There was a group out in california not too long ago who took this same route to try and shut down a particular resturant.

              They were jihadist veggies and said the smoke was destroying their ‘hood.

              I exchanged a couple of posts with the leader. He was 100% jihadist veggie rocking the dreadlocks and the knitted cap rastifarian look.

              1. Think globally, act locally.

            2. You guys are really wrapped up in whether the vegans are behind this.

              You’re the one who brought it up.

              My point was that if we are in a totalitarian society if we only look at one side of these kinds of issues.

              Which nuisance law doesn’t do — it balances rights. Which is good, since the nuisance tort has been around as long as the common law has, over a millennium, and almost none of that period could be called totalitarian.

            3. Why did Saddam Hussein refuse to allow in weapons inspectors and let them see whatever they wanted–when he didn’t have any WMD (to speak of) and the alternative was being bombed, invaded, and occupied by the United States and ultimately being executed?

              Maybe people don’t always do what’s in their own best interests?

              So your response is the Saddam Hussein version of the Chewbacca defense? Weak.

              1. Now you’re just trolling.

                Hey everybody, is this Tulpa?

                It’s starting to feel like Tulpa.

            4. But it isn’t just vegan lefties who do this, everybody does it. And the reason we all do it is because we have no alternative mechanism for making these tradeoffs. The alternative mechanism libertarianism advocates is the free market, but our government actively prevents free markets in many areas of life.

              Libertarianism essentially says that there should be millions of different “governments”, each responsible for different aspects of life, different geographic regions, etc.; you pay for becoming a member in whichever ones you find useful, and as part of that, you agree to abide by its rules. That is, instead of a “total” state, it has many “partial” states.

              Libertarianism doesn’t eliminate the need for you to abide by other people’s rules–that’s part of our biology–but it gives you a choice in the rules you want to abide by.

          2. Everything we do–or don’t do–impacts someone else negatively in some way. If impacting other people negatively gives the government the justification to regulate our behavior, then we will live in a totalitarian society–where everything we do or don’t do is regulated by government. Climate change alarmists would regulate the hell out of us because of what we’re doing or not doing. Animal rights activists would do the same thing. And there are a thousand other interests who want to use these issue to do likewise. Bakers can’t refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples–becasue what they won’t do might adversely effect someone else.

            My activity on my property adversely effecting someone else–by itself–is not a sufficient justification for government intervention. That’s what I’m trying to show–regardless of whether animal rights activists are behind this particular BBQ ban.

            1. The nuisance tort is as old as common law. Have we been living in a totalitarian society since medieval England?

            2. Bakers can’t refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples–becasue what they won’t do might adversely effect someone else.

              I have never heard that argument for anti-discrimination laws. They are “justified” on grounds totally separate from the justification for nuisance law.

              1. They may not have enunciated it in those exact terms, but it’s intrinsic to what they’re saying.

                No, you cannot negatively impact gay people with your inaction. Your right to free exercise of religion is only protected if it doesn’t negatively impact gay people’s weddings.

            3. My activity on my property adversely effecting someone else–by itself–is not a sufficient justification for government intervention.

              No, but your activity on your property violating a private contract is sufficient justification for other people to enforce that contract against you.

              The reason this turns into government intervention is because government effectively owns the air, has a monopoly on the air, and as its owner, sets the rules and enforces them. It’s the same with gay wedding cakes: government has taken away the right for property owners to determine who may operate a business on their property, monopolized that right, and now uses it to impose rules on businesses.

              With your arguments, you have already accepted the statist thinking, namely that large parts of our lives should be owned and ruled by the state, you simply quibble with progressives and other statists about the details of those rules.

          3. I believe they would specifically target BBQ restaurants because BBQ isn’t just about eating meat – it celebrates meat. They hate all meat-eaters, but become irrationally unglued about the ‘flaming’ carnivores.

      2. Yes, his neighbor’s cinder landed on his property and landed on his shirt, but doesn’t his neighbor also have the right to burn coal to keep warm during the winter?

        Nuisance law recognizes a balancing of property rights. Being able to heat your home is more important to the use of that property than having a cinder-free yard is, so no court is going to forbid you from doing that.

        Now, playing loud rock music all night is less important to the enjoyment of your property than being able to sleep in your home, so the courts would certainly rule the loud music to be a nuisance in that case.

        Are you really so stubborn and dogmatic that you don’t recognize a rights conflict in that situation?

        1. “Are you really so stubborn and dogmatic that you don’t recognize a rights conflict in that situation?”

          Yes, I recognize rights conflicts all over the place.

          People’s legitimate rights overlap and conflict with other people’s legitimate rights all the time, and one of the few legitimate roles of government is sorting those questions out.

          Adam Smith pointed out that we, effectively, evolved customs and rules to sort through these things that were more complicated than anything the government could ever come up with–but he recognized a legitimate function of government in sorting this stuff out.

          The original post I was responding to did not recognize a second side to this issue. It only recognized one party’s rights:

          “From a libertarian point of view, letting BBQ smoke drift into someone else’s yard is, a priori, an infringement on their property rights.”

          That’s half the libertarian point of view. The other half? No, I don’t expect the police to lock down the frat house next door just because I moved in and they play their music loud. The owners of a frat house have rights, too. They have a right to play music on their property. And no, I don’t believe their right to play music necessarily ends just because I can hear it on my property at three o’clock in the afternoon on a Saturday.

          1. The owners of a frat house have rights, too. They have a right to play music on their property.

            You’re blind to the third property involved: the air through which the sound is transmitted. You aren’t arguing about rights to the property people own, you are arguing about the rules that govern this third property. This third property isn’t owned by either party, it’s effectively owned by the state. And the reason these conflicts arise is because the state governs it arbitrarily, according to political, rather than market, mechanisms.

            If you start from the premise (as you seem to) that the state should own some of the most valuable resources we have, like air, water, business licenses, etc., necessarily you end up with statist conclusions like that the state needs to balance overlapping rights.

            In fact, for noise, as for anything else, generating it imposes a costs on someone else. It’s a small cost, but people should pay for it. You want to impose this cost for free. And with that, you are part of the root cause of SWAT teams and state violence.

            1. Wait, I know I’m late here but what you’re saying doesn’t make sense.

              Maybe the cinder example isn’t perfect because he’s talking about private stuff entering a public space, but the music example is apt. If it works better for you, consider both houses in cubes full of air molecules. Sound is the jostling of air molecules. I have the right to jostle my molecules til the cows come home, but not to jostle yours. If I cannot jostle mines w/o subsequently jostlin’ yours, then I have an obligation to mitigate the harm the exercise of my right brings to you. You don’t have a right to tell me I can’t play music, but I don’t have the right to play music in such a way that it interferes with the exercise of your rights.

              This is really very simple. Where rights conflict, they cease to be rights. I have a right to listen to music; you have a right to not listen to music. You do not have a right to silence, since this infringes on others’ rights to make noise. Where my right to listen to music conflicts with your right to sleep, we have an obligation to each other to find a compromise position that’s acceptable to both of us.

              This is called, “Not Being An Asshole”.

      3. From a libertarian point of view, letting BBQ smoke drift into someone else’s yard is, a priori, an infringement on their property rights.

        I am unaware that your property rights give you the right, never mind the ability, to ban certain molecules in the atmosphere from crossing over your property lines. While your property rights certainly extend to banning people and things from coming onto your property, I don’t they extend to banning molecules from coming onto your property.

        Unless and until they make your property unusable for anyone to use for its intended purpose, of course. And BBQ smoke falls pretty far short of that, absent a truly extreme situation like a big commercial pit a few yards from your house.

        1. Unless and until they make your property unusable for anyone to use for its intended purpose

          “Unusable” and “for anyone” set an awfully high standard for something to be a nuisance. Even residential nighttime noise regulations wouldn’t satisfy it, since you could always just suck up and buy some earplugs or sell your house to a deaf person, right?

          If your neighbor’s activities would require the average person to take extreme measures to be able to use the property, that’s enough for nuisance in my book.

        2. Unless and until they make your property unusable for anyone to use for its intended purpose

          “Unusable” and “for anyone” set an awfully high standard for something to be a nuisance. Even residential nighttime noise regulations wouldn’t satisfy it, since you could always just suck up and buy some earplugs or sell your house to a deaf person, right?

          If your neighbor’s activities would require the average person to take extreme measures to be able to use the property, that’s enough for nuisance in my book.

        3. I am unaware that your property rights give you the right, never mind the ability, to ban certain molecules in the atmosphere from crossing over your property lines.

          Well, now you’re aware: from a libertarian point of view, this is part of property rights.

          Unless and until they make your property unusable for anyone to use for its intended purpose, of course

          And who determines this “usability”? The EPA? Government experts? Greenpeace? The Moral Majority? And where do you draw the line? Clouds of green chlorine vapor? Sewage smells? Substances that cause cancer in mice?

          Libertarians recognize that the only consistent solution to these issues is to leave them up to the market. And that means that BBQ smells are considered an infringement on other people’s property rights, just like emitting nerve gas would be.

          The consequence of that is not the cartoon version of property rights you seem to imagine, namely that you can’t BBQ anymore, it means that a market will determine a price for those emissions: if they are harmless, you pay little, if they bother a lot of people, you pay a lot. And that price isn’t paid per-BBQ, it’s priced into your local HOA.

      4. “Adam Smith saw a legitimate role for government in cases where our rights overlap and conflict with each other. And I see it that way, too.”

        So because you and Adam Smith feel that folks in fancy clothes who receive their money through extortion are necessary to make decisions for others when things get tough, the rest of us need to be stripped of our right to utilize private arbiters and be slaves to the state.

        There is no legitimate role for the state. Anything the state can do with stolen money, free individuals can do more efficiently and effectively through voluntary transactions and interaction.

        1. “So because you and Adam Smith feel that folks in fancy clothes who receive their money through extortion are necessary to make decisions for others when things get tough, the rest of us need to be stripped of our right to utilize private arbiters and be slaves to the state.”

          Yes, that’s exactly what I said.

          Actually, no. I’m saying that if the government has any legitimate function whatsoever, it is to protect our rights. The government has a legitimate function in protecting our rights from foreign threats, so we have a military. The government has a legitimate function in protecting our rights from criminals, so we have a criminal court system and police. The government has a legitimate function in protecting our rights from non-criminals–from people whose legitimate rights overlap and conflict with our own. Among other things, we have a civil court system to deal with those kinds of disputes.

          I’m not an anarchist, but I don’t think protecting our rights is a justification for the government to do anything else but protect our rights. Whether it is possible to have a government that protects our rights in these ways without overstepping its bounds is a legitimate question, but whether an anarchist society could function without some government like mechanism to protect our rights against foreign threats, criminals, and solve legal disputes about overlapping and conflicting rights is a legitimate question also.

          1. The government is incapable of protecting our rights, and can’t do it more efficiently than free individuals.

            Claiming Defense can only be handled by governments through standing armies is nonsensical. It blatantly ignores history and how far more efficient and effective the private production of security and defense has been and is.

            The privateers were more effective than anything the navies of the time could produce and accomplished far more to the war effort. In many captures, fists instead of guns were used. Privateers were far less violent than the warships of the state. Private shipbuilding was efficient, while ships of the “state” suffered from delays and cost overruns.

            Privateers and letters of marque ships didn’t disappear because they were innefective. Their records show the opposite. It’s similar to the USS New Jersey being sent home after a short deployment during the Vietnam war. It wasn’t because the ship wasn’t performing well. It did too good a job, and calls to reactivate the other three were denied.

            The questions you are asking, are already answered throughout the history of violent governments everywhere. How many more times do you need to be shown before others will be allowed to be free?

            1. You didn’t answer the question about how a society of 300 million people would protect people’s rights from foreign threats, criminals, and non-criminal disputes over legitimate rights–without something like a military, a criminal justice system, and a civil court system.

              I don’t think an anarchist system would last very long unless it addressed those three concerns anyway, and in addressing those concerns, I suspect you’re going to end up with something that looks a lot like the government I’m talking about–if it’s addressing those three concerns.

              Ultimately, we’re going to be subject to what 300 million people want in regards to defense, criminal justice, and contract disputes, so, ultimately, how small the government is will be a function of what those 300 million people want. Unfortunately, I think what we have now is pretty close to what a lot of people actually want.

              1. I think it was Doherty who said, “The real purpose of libertarianism has always been to create more libertarians”, and if creating more libertarians requires us to justify the basic precepts of government to people who still get misty-eyed when they sing the national anthem, then I don’t have any problem doing that–in a libertarian way. If we ever get the government so small that we can realistically think about strangling what little there is left of it, then we should definitely have an argument about it then.

                In the meantime, you take the high road, and I’ll take the low road–but we’ve got a long way to go before we get enough people together with their hearts where they need to be in order to live in the kind of free society we both want.

              2. Foreign threats – private production of defense could be provided through insurance companies. Commercial ships could also protect themselves, instead of having skiffs take them over because they are prohibited from being armed. Gun control on the seas has only encouraged piracy. The navy is incapable of dealing with piracy effectively. Modern Privateers can be just as effective as they were long ago, if not more with modern technology. Warfare is expensive, many folks would rather trade with one another and better their lives than going to war with one another. That is unlike the state who meddles in the affairs of other nations and engages in protracted conflict. Would be hard to invade a place with 200 million armed individuals combatting you with guerrilla warfare.

                Non criminal disputes – private arbitration through places like Amazon and eBay help folks out with disputes effectively, without hiring droves of bureaucrats. Consumer protection…. The private UL. Ways for individuals to rate companies – consumer reports, Amazon & eBay feedback and on goes the list.

                Criminal acts and protection of property – Individuals protecting themselves, and/or voluntarily hiring security services themselves, or having it provided through their insurance company. Not forced to fund a violent coercive police force that is the arm of the state, and is funded through extortion and benefits from “qualified immunity”.

                1. Courts – reference Brehon law and the Brehon judges that were elected and liable for the decisions they made. Contracts are written all the time, and goverent isn’t needed to enforce them. Private arbiters similar to eBay’s (etc.) resolution services can be agreed upon at the time of said contract.

              3. I don’t think an anarchist private, free market system would last very long unless it addressed those three concerns anyway, and in addressing those concerns, I suspect you’re going to end up with something that looks a lot like the government I’m talking about–if it’s addressing those three concerns.

                Indeed, it wouldn’t look very different, which means that you implicitly acknowledge that the market can take care of these things (in fact, for criminal and civil matters, it already does for many people).

                However, the crucial difference would be that we wouldn’t be socializing costs: you pay for what you use. For example, if you’re particularly worried about a nuclear strike by the Russians, you’d move to an area protected by a missile shield and pay accordingly. If saving Israel from its neighbors floats your boat, you pay for it yourself. Etc.

      5. Adam Smith disagrees.

        Adam Smith wasn’t a libertarian.

        Adam Smith saw a legitimate role for government in cases where our rights overlap and conflict with each other. And I see it that way, too.

        “Government” means that some crazy lady from halfway across the city can tell you that you can’t have a BBQ; that’s what you want, and that kind of thinking leads to totalitarianism. A libertarian solution means that you and your immediate neighbors have private agreements that suit your preferences.

    3. It’s true that BBQ smoke “affects” others, and some of them may find it bothersome. But there has to be a distinction between activities that are mildly annoying and activities that seriously violate someone’s rights.

      There are all kinds of things my neighbors do that “affect” me. When I’m trying to catch a nap in the afternoon, I can hear their kids making tons of noise while playing outside. There’s some guy down the street using powertools all the time. Hell, there’s a house across the street that I just think looks really ugly. Yet, nobody is arguing that these things should be banned. There are restrictions on noise during nighttime hours and certain standards of property upkeep, but these things, which affect me and annoy me to some degree, are allowed, and I agree that they should be in spite of that.

      I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t devised a perfect standard for determining which olfactory encroachments should be permitted. I mean, there has to be some level of food aroma that is permissible. Hell, one of my neighbors told me that she can smell it from the sidewalk when I cook tomato sauce inside the house. And there’s a world of difference between making the block smell like bratwurst and, say, burning old tires in your backyard.

      1. Yet, nobody is arguing that these things should be banned.

        Actually, there are, but they are loons.

      2. Because it’s easy for you to not look at the house across the street, while it’s impossible not to smell an odor without taking extreme measures that interfere with your normal activities on your property. Ditto for loud noises, but I’m assuming the power tools and kids aren’t so loud that you’d need earplugs, etc.

      3. But there has to be a distinction between activities that are mildly annoying and activities that seriously violate someone’s rights.
        .
        It’s the “March of Dimes” problem, the “mission creep” – they only want to eliminate the very worst problems but no matter how many problems you eliminate there will still be some that are the worst. Sure, we don’t have slavery any more in this country, but how can you say we are any better off if a gay couple can’t get a wedding cake from a Christian bakery? It’s the exact same thing!!!

      4. “I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t devised a perfect standard for determining which olfactory encroachments should be permitted.”

        I don’t think there should be a perfect standard.

        Like life, it should be a messy standard subject to mistakes, corrections, and change.

        Like real life.

        We’re not talking about criminal acts, here. We’re talking about BBQ.

        1. By definition nuisances aren’t criminal acts.

      5. It’s true that BBQ smoke “affects” others, and some of them may find it bothersome. But there has to be a distinction between activities that are mildly annoying and activities that seriously violate someone’s rights.

        And that distinction is made by Top Men and then imposed by government goons? I don’t think so.

        Many people don’t mind BBQ smell, others care a great deal about it. A free market lets each group of people find living arrangements that suit their preferences.

    4. What if the BBQ joints were there first?

  23. This reminds me of the Butchertown neighborhood in Louisville. It is gentrifying and some of the new residents complained about the smell (which when the wind is wrong, is AWFUL!!!) from the one remaining butcher. We arent talking butcher shop, this is pigs being slaughtered by the thousands.

    YOU BOUGHT A HOUSE IN BUTCHERTOWN, WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU EXPECT?

    /insert blink tag where appropriate.

    1. To think we chose this place over Slaughtertown and Hacktown!

    2. Or the people who buy houses near airports and then complain about noise.

      1. Or people who buy houses in the vicinity of shooting ranges and complain about the noise and the “danger”.

  24. Okay, so what kind of tight-assed killjoy asswipe complains about the aroma of barbecue? In TEXAS?

    What are the odds this is the result of importing retards from the Communist People’s Republic of California?

  25. I know of a few lefties that have moved from SF to Austin in the past year and more are headed that way. Please take them. We have way too many here.

    1. I agree completely. We certainly don’t need them squatting in Tucson.

      1. That’s probably the only joy to living in Sheriff Joe’s jurisdiction – the leftward leaning lemurs don’t want to move here.

  26. This all arose because Black’s Barbecue on Barton Springs Road backs up to a cliff atop which there are several houses. Black’s smokestacks are allegedly lower than the cliff and so their smoke drifts upward straight into peoples’ homes, or so the homeowners claim. How this somehow got turned into an attempt at city-wide regulation is key to the liberal mindset of the city government, which never met a regulation it didn’t like.

  27. I think the first comment on the article resolved the issue, for you people still talking about lawsuits on comment #137.

  28. This is what happens when a community allows open immigration from an alien culture. For decades Austin welcomed wave after wave of Californian immigrants. Ultimately, it has become californicated, and now the fruititarians now complain about the smell of BBQ.

    A great Texan once likened Yankees to hemorrhoids: when they come down and go back up, they’re not so bad; but when they come down and stay down, they’re a source of constant irritation. But even Yankees don’t complain about Texas barbecue.

  29. The only solution is to immediately halt the barbecue joints from actually grilling meat. Clearly they could form organic tofu into the shape of a brisket (whatever that is) and cook it in a solar oven. These Eco-friendly devices could actually heat the tofu-briquette to nearly 100 degrees in less than seven hours! Then, just pour on some liquid smoke and some fair-trade, artisanal catsup and it would taste exactly the same. Everybody wins!

    1. OMFG!!!! What a marvel idea. If you put on a fancy suit, I would so vote others into slavery cause you promised everyone wins…..and said eco friendly too!!!

      So when do we start clubbing those who do not pay and obey over the head? We can write fancy papers to give them when we take their stuff, and even mandate they use our paper money that they have to turn in their gold and silver for.

      (slapping my club against my thigh) Vote for Fabi!!!!!!

    2. Pretty sure tofu would give off a seriously strong smell on a barbecue…maybe even more than meat.

      1. Hey, never mind that blasphemy!!, Fabi said Eco friendly, so they’ll be inventing a smell sequestration device.

        So we’re gonna raise your taxes to fund it Mr. smarty pants!

  30. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
    http://www.work-cash.com

  31. About 20 years ago, the Wall Street Journal reported that someone at the EPA wanted to restrict the chemicals that provide the smell of new-baked bread. In many ways, liberals are extremely puritanical.

    1. Maybe they need to inhale a wonder bread bag and let it hang out in their airway so they could ponder how effing stupid they are for wanting to ban the smell of fresh baked bread.

  32. Only if we clear the air of barbecue will we be able to lean back and smell the Prius exhaust and the phenol wafting from our solar panels as we raise a glass of pasteurized soy milk to Tobacco-Free Austin.

  33. That’s the bitch about differential valu’n: To most people, music, perfume, baking, or barbecue is a positive externality, but to a few (especially under some circs, such as if the music coincides with your sleeping time) it can be negative.

    Yeah, but if you voluntarily bought a house next to a BBQ smokehouse, and you decide, being the precious princess that you are, that the wonderful smell that others smell is terrible for you — sell yer gotdamn house to someone who will pay a premium for the experience and quit trying to impose your values on others.

    Shorter: Fuck the Austin City Council. Hard. In the ass. Sans lube. Buncha nanny arseholes trying to fuck up my life.

    1. What if you were there 1st, the smokehouse 2nd?

  34. This all arose because Black’s Barbecue on Barton Springs Road backs up to a cliff atop which there are several houses.

    Had brisket there today before heading across the street to the Texas Roller Derby event. Some damn fine meat there.

    The brisket was day-am good.

    The black pussy I ate at my GF’s house before going to Black’s was waaay better.

  35. Want to make money online ? Learn the secret of how I raking $100 to $200 a month just by taking paid surveys!.For more detials :
    …. http://WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM

  36. Git a rope! Somebody ride over to Soap Creek Saloon and round us up a posse…

  37. We need to move (old) Austin to Luckenbach or Stonewall, and get back to our origins.
    Accepted weirdness– good food, good music, and the wafting aroma of …

  38. I don’t eat meat, so I miss out on Austin’s main culinary specialty, but humans have been setting dead animals on fire for hundreds of thousands of years, and cooking meat still smells pretty good. (Don’t know if you’re allowed to mention evolution in Texas, at least outside Austin, though.)

    There’s also decent Mexican food there, though I think we do it better in California.

  39. Josiah . you think Robin `s storry is incredible… on thursday I got themselves a Mercedes-Benz S-class after having made $7374 this-last/4 weeks and in excess of ten/k this past munth . it’s by-far the most rewarding Ive had . I began this seven months/ago and almost straight away was earning minimum $73 per-hour . have a peek here ……. http://WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM

  40. I can not agree with the author.

  41. First they came for the barbecue smoke

    1. No. First they came for the cigarette smoke on the airplanes. Then the restaurants. We told all y’all that next thing you know they will be prohibiting it EVERYWHERE. And you laughed and called us paranoid. The phrase ‘common sense regulations’ started to be tossed about. They won, licked their chops and looked around for more victims . . .

      I seemed to have gone off track, sorry bout that. I haven’t even smoked in two years and I’m still ticked off at the prohibitionists.

  42. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
    http://www.work-cash.com

  43. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.www.netjob80.com

  44. the problem here is;is the “nuisance” REALLY a nuisance,or just the complaint of a hypersensitive or “complainer”,a whiner? there’s always some unhappy person who lets trivial things bother them.
    They’re spoilers.
    Barbecue smoke would have to be really thick to do any actual harm to a person,and i doubt that is the case in general.
    IMO,to shut down a business over their BBQ smoke,the complainant or state should have to prove measurable harm. not just state it,but PROVE it.

  45. I just wanted to comment that you can’t find any decent barbecue in the state of Texas. If you thought no grilled sausage is barbecue you are hopeless. And brisket? Please.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.