MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Is This the Summer of Snitches?

Meet Burrito Bob, Permit Patty, and other vigilante informants

A man wearing a Hawaiian shirt on San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) went viral earlier this month after calling the cops on a man eating his lunch. A video posted to Reddit shows an angered passenger, who is now referred to as Burrito Bob, confronting another passenger on a BART train for snacking while traveling on the Dublin/Pleasanton line, close to the famed Fruitvale Station. BART currently has rules against eating and drinking; violations carry a fine of $250.

"You can't wait? A sign says no eating and drinking. You don't get it? You don't get it. You must be stupid. I've seen people like you on TV," he tells the passenger.

Bystanders look on and laugh when the man announces that he's going to contact authorities. Burrito Bob proceeds to use the train's emergency contact system to ask for an officer, saying: "Please, can you get a policeman on board? We've got somebody dining on the first car." While Burrito Bob waits, surrounding passengers encourage the man to "eat your burrito, bro," including one drinking from a nearly empty Starbucks cup. Burrito Bob continues to defend his position, saying that the passenger should wait to nourish himself in the appropriate venue.

Burrito Bob now joins a growing list of alliterative offenders who have attempted to use authorities to enforce petty regulations this summer.

BBQ Becky: In late April, a woman called police on black barbecuers at Lake Merritt in Oakland, California, after claiming that they were not allowed to operate a charcoal grill in the area. When police did not take the call as seriously as she'd hoped, she broke down into tears. Oaklanders threw a cookout called "BBQing While Black" in response.

Permit Patty: In June, a woman called police on a young black girl selling water without a permit. The woman later argued that she did so because the girl's mother was "screaming for hours." Some noted the hypocrisy of the call after it was revealed that she was the CEO of a "kind of like 'don't ask, don't tell'" pet weed business.

Pool Patrol Paula: Also in June, a woman threatened to call police after telling a black teen that his friends were "punks" who "didn't belong" at a community pool in Summerville, South Carolina. In a video, she's visible striking in the general direction of the teen at least twice. When investigators in the Dorchester County Sheriff's Office attempted to serve her a warrant for third-degree assault, she picked up some additional charges after fighting back.

Honorable mentions go to a Philadelphia Starbucks employee who in April called police on two black men while they were waiting in the coffee shop for a meeting and Ohio neighbors who called police in June after a 12-year-old cut the grass on their property by mistake—the young man's business ended up growing as a result.

Even CountryTime lemonade has gotten involved, promising to pay the fines of children who have the police called on them for running unlicensed lemonade stands.

These stories are a part of a phenomenon that Reason's Mike Riggs has dubbed the "Nation of Narcs." Riggs offers a number of solutions to scale back the problem, one of which is reducing the scope of government:

The second project is a political program: to drastically scale back the police powers of every arm of the state. Not just the police police, but the health police and the tax police and the zoning police. All those agencies work in concert. The person who refuses to pare back her garden gets a fine. If she doesn't pay the fine, she loses her driver's license. If she drives regardless, because her job or family needs her to, she gets arrested. The police state is a hydra, so let's treat it like one.

Photo Credit: Screenshot via Reddit/R0b815

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.

  • Shirley Knott||

    "Pet weed business"??

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Yeah, I don't get that either.

    Dogs for one don't react well to weed. A few months ago one of our dogs, for no apparent reason, started acting lethargic, then started drooling and peeing uncontrollably. The poor damn thing couldn't sit upright - it would try and it's front legs would sloooooly slide forward until it was sort of half laying down.

    We took it to the vet and the vet said that the only thing that would generate all of the symptoms the dog was showing would be marijuana poisoning. (Side note: I argued that there was no way because the dog wouldn't have had any way to access it - we live in a state in which the leaders still believe Reefer Madness to be a documentary - and the vet says "I practiced in Portland for 11 years and I've seen this a lot".) The vet's theory was that some kid threw a baggie over our fence out of fear of getting caught and our dog ate it.

    So, yeah, you're not going to give weed to a dog. Cats? Beats me how they'd react to it. Not sure about other pets either.

  • Eddy||

    Apparently she came up with some kind of MJ compound which *doesn't* make pets drool and piss - but one store announced it wouldn't sell her product any more because it didn't like her behavior with the water-selling girl.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "Cats? Beats me how they'd react to it."

    Isn't catnip related to marijuana?

  • Shirley Knott||

    I don't think so. Catnip is a mint — if there's a relationship, I suspect it's distant.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    No they just look alike when ground up so people used to (still do?) sell catnip to uniformed customers.

  • Longtobefree||

    With a cat, how would you know?

  • IceTrey||

    Except eating raw cannabis doesn't get you high.

  • Peter Duncan||

    ^^this^^

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "Except eating raw cannabis doesn't get you high."

    I know. The vet didn't say he was "stoned", he said he was "poisoned".

    Marijuana poisoning in dogs is a well-known thing in dogs, apparently. The ex-Portland vet told us a story about a dog he was treated that shared a back fence with a dealer, and once when the cops were raiding the dealer's house the residents of the house tossed several kilos of weed in packages over the fence. The dog in question helped the dealer by disposing of the evidence. Fortunately he/she survived.

    But it's certainly a fairly common occurrence. Google it if you don't believe me.

  • IceTrey||

    The dog ate 6 pounds of weed?

  • IceTrey||

    I looked at 4 sites and none said raw cannabis can poison your dog.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Look, I argued with the vet in person, and he just gave me the "I practiced in Portland for 11 years, so I know what I'm talking about" schtick.

    But, here you go:

    http://www.petpoison helpline.com/pet-safety-tips /marijuana-toxicity-pets/

    https://www.veterinary practicenews.com /treating-marijuana-toxicity/

    Don't know what you googled, but there are literally dozens of articles out there regarding this subject. I had to put in spaces to post the links because they exceeded the 50 character limit.....

  • IceTrey||

    Petpoison doesn't say anything about raw cannabis. It says edibles and concentrates.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Holy shit, dude. Argue much? Here's a quote directly from the Petpoison article (emphasis added):

    "Animals can be poisoned by marijuana in different ways. They can ingest marijuana edibles such as brownies or pot butter, INGEST THE OWNER'S SUPPLY OF MARIJUANA (IN ANY FORMULATION), or by second hand smoke."

    You really didn't read it, huh?

    Tell you what, the phone number of the vet hospital is (832) 616-5000. Call the vet and argue with him.

  • IceTrey||

    Raw cannabis isn't a formulation. If it had said "form" you might have a point.

  • Ecoli||

    It doesn't? Are you saying it has to be cooked (baked, boiled, fricaseed, etc) or it won't get you high?

  • IceTrey||

    Decarboxylated.

  • Trainer||

    It sounds like the dog got a hold of macadamia nuts.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    FTA:

    TreatWell sells pain-easing "cannabis-based tinctures in different ratios for humans and pets," The Los Angeles Times reported last year.

    Pot for pooches and pussies.

  • colorblindkid||

    But, like with everything, the press only report stories when there are racist implications instead of the thousands of other times this happens, and instead of the conversation being about these shitty rules and regulations, it is made entirely about racism, encouraging people to vote for more "progressive", the very people who push for these stupid laws that have to be enforced.

  • Cy||

    It's funny, I didn't read anything racist about this. granted, i didn't read the whole thing. I just immediately thought 'look it's a liberal douche trying to force his will on people around him."

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    BBQ Becky, Permit Patty, and Pool Patrol Paula were blasted through the media as "SEE!?!?! WHITES ARE ALL RACIST!!!!!!".

  • Sevo||

    "It's funny, I didn't read anything racist about this."
    The Permit Patty 'event' happened in SF, and it got some coverage, but nothing regarding race, until the local racist columnist grabbed it: The kid was black.
    To the racist, NOTHING happens which is not about whitey hating on others, so natch, this was a matter of a white racist in action.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Not all the examples involved race, but this one did:


    BBQ Becky: In late April, a woman called police on black barbecuers at Lake Merritt in Oakland, California, after claiming that they were not allowed to operate a charcoal grill in the area. When police did not take the call as seriously as she'd hoped, she broke down into tears. Oaklanders threw a cookout called "BBQing While Black" in response.
  • Modus Pwnens||

    How did that involve race? Because the caller happened to be of different race from the person she was reporting? There's no indication that she had racist motives.

  • Longtobefree||

    If the caller is white it is racist by definition even if the offender is white; if the caller is anything else, and the offender is white, it is just retribution for the sins of the fathers fathers father.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Among the greatest achievements of America's liberal-libertarian alliance is that downscale bigots no longer wish to be known as racists, misogynists, xenophobes, gay-bashers, etc., at least not publicly.

    When I was young the bigotry was open, casual, and common. The bigots wanted everyone to know that there were rules -- where blacks could walk, how gays could be treated, how much a woman could be smacked around in public and how much in private, when Jews and Hispanics weren't welcome -- and wanted everyone to know that this was their way and that their way was the only way.

    Today's bigots are cowardly and guarded, hiding behind terms such as "colorblind" or "traditional values" in public and saving their genuine opinions for the safety of their living rooms, or a militia outing, or a Republican committee meeting.

    This is progress, friends. No wonder the ignorant and intolerant hate progress.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    You infer hostility that is not there, Rev. What are your plans for Easter?

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Fuck you. Do not relate anyone else except Tony and PB to the bullshit you believe in. You aren't liberal, asshole.

  • Sevo||

    "...he's gonna be a corpse any day now!"
    We can hope.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Why so hard on your fellow progs, Rev?

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    How did that involve race?

    People familiar with the park and area have said people bbq there all the time. No one called the cops on white people doing it.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    BBQ Becky mistakenly thought that global climate change card plus the vegan rights card plus the female gender card trumps the race card. They don't.

    The global climate change card is a particularly strong trump card and the female gender card can be strong in some plays, but the vegan rights card is one of the lesser trump cards. In any case, the race card trumps all other card combinations.

    BBQ Becky needs a re-orientation in intersectionality theory.

  • 5Arete22||

    Has this idea been translated into a real-world card game?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I'm not saying that race was a motive. I'm saying that it became about race. Once the news came out, the response was to have a BBQing While Black cookout.

  • TeamsterX||

    BURRITO automatically makes it racists....

    If guy busted out Asian food, Harvard and this guy would have ignored him.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Swinging the club of government at others has always been a thing. It's just recently we're getting tasty videos and easy doxxing to call out the swingers.

    As Riggs argues, the real problem is that there are too many laws on the books making just about everything a person could be doing to annoy another person a criminal act worthy of police involvement. It might be time to start shaming legislators and regulators into backing off.

  • SQRLSY One||

    "...the real problem is that there are too many laws on the books ..."

    Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!!!!

  • Longtobefree||

    Racist!

  • Earth Skeptic||

    What, against chickens?

  • Penny_Worth||

    Yes! And I agree as well its time (though would suggest far past time) to start shaming legislators and regulators into restoring limited government at all levels; local, county, state and federal.

  • Mark22||

    If you think that there would be fewer rules or less strict enforcement of such rules in a libertarian world, you haven't lived in an HOA. No-BBQ, no shouting, no eating, etc. would be enforced swiftly on privately operated common areas, transportation, or roads, and without the niceties of due process.

  • Shirley Knott||

    Indeed. The culture has to change first.
    Until MYOB becomes a commonplace principle, this kind of shit is unavoidable.

  • Jerryskids||

    Talk to people who lived in East Germany before the wall came down, the Stasi were not as all-knowing and all-seeing as was rumored, they relied on dog-in-the-manger neighbors to inform on the wreckers and the kulaks. There was a book I was reading where the lady was saying that was the worst thing about it, not that you couldn't trust the government but you couldn't trust your neighbor. Get your hands on a black-market piece of meat - something that should be a cause for celebration - and you had to figure out how to try to cook it without the neighbors smelling it because sure as hell they'd rat you out in a heartbeat. The government loves sowing distrust amongst the citizenry, society can't survive if nobody can trust anybody else.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Is that why they promote the #MeToo movement?

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    See something, say something

  • Rich||

    Actually, it'll take MYOFB.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    HOAs are hardly libertarian; they are completely a creature of government. Many local govts won't approve plat for new development unless there is an HOA. FHA won't lend to developers without an HOA. Other HOAs were created because they were the only feasible means of complying with environmental regulations.

  • Longtobefree||

    As much as it pains me to defend an HOA, they are creatures of private contract, not the government; and therefore as Libertarian as it gets.
    The only role of the government is to regulate the HOA as a business, as well as everything else in sight.
    There is no mention of HOAs on the HUD website. FHA does not lend to anyone, let alone developers. They guarantee loans made to individuals.

    You subject yourself to an HOA voluntarily by buying in an HOA neighborhood. Believe it or not, there are non-HOA homes available.

  • Sevo||

    "As much as it pains me to defend an HOA, they are creatures of private contract, not the government; and therefore as Libertarian as it gets."

    And they should serve as a reminder that anything that even smells like a government needs a constitution.
    They are the WORST sort of direct democracy, where that self-righteous twit who was hall monitor in HS gets elected and makes your life miserable.
    I'm seeing our annoying asshole as pretty much the archetype.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Even the government cannot seize your property without Due Process unlike HOAs.

    There are examples of HOAs changing their rules, going after residents over flags (Americans flags), getting liens against homeowners, and then having that home sold out from under the person to pay for the lien.
    HOA article

  • Mark22||

    And they should serve as a reminder that anything that even smells like a government needs a constitution

    That's called the "CC". If you don't like them, don't buy into the HOA. Simple as that.

    Note that the CC contain both the rules for changing the CC (majority vote, unanimous consent, etc.) and the scope of what can and cannot be imposed on home owners.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    These HOAs just have no appeal process in their decisions and the chnages to rules can happen easier than the Constitution.

    You are right about never buying into an HOA though.

  • Mark22||

    These HOAs just have no appeal process in their decisions and the chnages to rules can happen easier than the Constitution.

    The HOAs have whatever appeal process and rule change procedures are specified in their CC&R's. That may include external arbitrators, for example, and require unanimous consent.

    You are right about never buying into an HOA though.

    I never said such a thing. I think HOAs are necessary. And as a libertarian, I strongly prefer HOAs to government.

  • Paloma||

    When I bought my home, there was no HOA. It was created a few years later, and I never voted for it. They do little except go around checking for cracks on the driveways or a lightbulb that's out over the garage.

    And simple processes like getting new windows are a nightmare of bureaucracy. Horrible institutions.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I would check your title and paperwork relating to your purchase.

    Unless you have a covenant attached to the title that relates to an HOA, no neighbor can force you to do shit. A government agency can create/change local ordinances to got after your property deficiencies.

    Some HOAs are inactive when you buy a home and the some bossy neighbor reactIvates the HOA. Another trick due to the recession was to have inactive HOAs to sucker people into buying one of the many vacant houses in a subdivision and then after the dipshits who overpaid for their home are sure the neighborhood is coming back with suckers, the rwcfivate the HOA and start bleeding you dry and bossing you around.

    You are fool if you dont read contracts and buy into an HOA.

  • Mark22||

    Developers are forced to have HOAs because city governments want to get out of the responsibility of maintaining the roads and infrastructure. That is exactly why under libertarianism, there would be HOAs pretty much everywhere: that's what privatization of roads and infrastructure means. If you don't want that, you are not a libertarian.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, gee, Mark! Please tell us how we can qualify for your private club!

  • Mark22||

    I wouldn't want to be in the same private club as you. Freedom of association and all that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Mark how is government forcing developers to have all their housing developments HOA a libertarian fundamental?

  • Mark22||

    I didn't say that "government forcing developers to have all their housing developments HOA [is] a libertarian fundamental", I said that under libertarian government, the outcome would be the same for the same reasons: home owners need shared infrastructure.

    In fact, under libertarian government, there would likely be no housing development without HOAs at all; right now, under big government, towns and cities act like substitute HOAs for individual homeowners.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Agreed. And, except for anarchists, most of us want some restrictions on what neighbors can do on or with their property. If a HOA is necessary to prevent a spontaneous hog rendering operation in the middle of a residential neighborhood, sign me up.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    The real world behavior of HOAs are the biggest refutation of the theoretical benefits of libertarianism.

  • Mark22||

    Libertarianism isn't about benefits, it is about rights.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I haven't lived in an HOA. In fact, I've been lucky enough to have purchased enough land (and that land being surrounded by enough undeveloped land) to have no neighbors. But are HOA's really a libertarian thing?

  • Ricardo Vacilon||

    HOAs would only become the norm if the majority of home buyers demanded them. Furthermore, it's not at all clear to me that HOAs would be legal in a libertarian legal system.

  • Paloma||

    When did it become a libertarian principle that a majority got to say what color you painted your house. And then charged you for it?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    When you buy into an HOA you agree to the terms of that tyrannical contract.

    You're fucked.

  • Mark22||

    When did it become a libertarian principle that a majority got to say what color you painted your house

    Some HOAs have such rules. Others don't. Many HOAs mainly deal with how the cost of road maintenance is shared, and that's mostly what governments that "force" HOAs on developers care about. It's the developers themselves who then also choose to impose uniform appearance rules, for the simple reason that many buyers like the kind of ambiance that creates.

  • Mark22||

    HOAs would only become the norm if the majority of home buyers demanded them.

    Well, presumably home owners want roads, Internet, and electricity. If those are provided privately, you need common areas and agreements for how to manage those common areas and share the costs.

    Furthermore, it's not at all clear to me that HOAs would be legal in a libertarian legal system.

    Then you haven't thought through libertarianism at all. HOAs (and similar private associations) are voluntary private contracts, and they are inevitable in a libertarian legal system; libertarianism cannot function without them.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Well said, Fist of Etiquette.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Except in these cases, the govt didn't give a shit about enforcing its own laws.

    Best way to get rid of dumb laws is to universally enforce all laws to the letter.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    And to forbid plea agreements. I agree.

  • MoreFreedom||

    I agree, "petty regulations" are the problem. The libertarian position that people should be free to do whatever they want provided they don't initiate force against others or their property is the right approach.

    1. Eating on the subway - I'm OK with it provided they don't litter.
    2. BBQ in the park - I'm fine with it provided they clean up after themselves and don't start a grass/forest fire
    3. Selling water - the girl should be commended for her initiative to help others and make some money
    4. Kids in the pool - I'm OK with it provided they respect others there and have the permission of the pool owner to be there
    5. A business asking loiterers to buy something or leave - I believe businesses have that right, and disagree with Davis here. Libertarians should respect property rights.

  • Cy||

    They make you pay for it. They put out a bunch of stupid rules to ride it. Then they bitch that people aren't riding it. Proggy logic 101.

  • Cy||

    This is the thin blue line people! Look at it! LOOK AT IT! Stare into the black hole of chaos!!!

  • Brian||

    Snitches get stitches.

  • AlmightyJB||

    People are dicks. That's never going to change.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Some people are disrespectful and rude (I can live with it - it reflects on them), and some people initiate force against others or their property and that's why governments are instituted among men to protect our lives, property, liberty and pursuit of happiness. (OK - I added property but what freedom do we have if we can't own property?).

    What's important here is what laws are instituted. We need laws against people harming others. We don't need laws against rude and disrespectful behavior and speech (and thankfully we have the Constitution which limits government from making laws against speech, restricting the press, etc.).

  • H. Farnham||

    What part of "See something, say something" don't you understand, Zuri? This is why the terrorists are winning.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Let me tell you about snitches, bitches!!!

    Let me tell you the tale of Leisure Suit Larry and his homemade lung flute!

    Leisure Suit Larry is an old-old hippie from the oldest days of hippies, he's an old man, a friend of mine, and he hacks and wheezes from all his pot-smoking days, and from catching TB in the hoosegow, where he spent many years for pot-smoking. So he has congested lungs, and he blows on a cheap homemade lung flute... It is supposed to help purge the phlegm out. And... Get this!!! WITHOUT a doctor's prescription, yet!!! I TOLD this old man, again and again, to NOT flaunt his latent-blatant, flatulent disregard for the law, but there he was, blowing on a cheap plastic flute, in PUBLIC, fer chrissakes!!!

    So yes, a snitch turned him in, and now he's doing 15-25 years of hard time, being a repeat offender, and what not... A hazard to society!!!

    So I BEG of y'all to review THIS web page, which I have put up as a pubic service, to tell you EXACTLY what not do do!!! Read and heed, dammit!!! http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ !!!!

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The #MeToo movement does not approve of this message.

  • Sevo||

    "...The police state is a hydra, so let's treat it like one."

    And every agent a union employee. Think you're gonna put one out of work? Ha.

  • creech||

    Every neighborhood had a busy-body in the old days. She (usually a woman) would take your ball if it rolled on her lawn, etc. etc. Usually didn't call the cops or anything even when they were naturally targeted for Halloween mischief.
    One called the cops on my brother, who was home on leave, for drinking a beer in public on our front steps. Cost him $100 (wasn't yet 21). He retaliated by starting to drink cokes from beer cans, making the cops and the busy-body look like fools whenever they'd come by to make quick revenue.

  • DajjaI||

    I think we should have a war on eating burritos in the subway. The funny thing is, that would actually cause a rash of it. And while it might be horrible, at least it's better than war on drugs or guns or human trafficking. Just need to figure out how burritos will surely be the demise of humanity...... #uthinkimkidding

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "at least it's better than war on drugs or guns or human trafficking."

    Yea, it's better, until a SWAT team shows up on the subway train with automatic weapons and blasts the burrito eater and half a dozen innocent bystanders.

  • Longtobefree||

    There is no such thing as an 'innocent bystander'. in the official report they are labeled 'accomplices'.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Wow, that's so meta, an article that snitches on the snitches. The problem with a no snitch policy is the inability to figure out which rules are worth enforcing and which rules to not enforce. Plenty of people tell me they are afraid to go to the micronation in Paterson where the drug dealers have this habit of killing people and the associates of people who enter their micronation without permission. And you thought ICE was bad. At some point in our history, we decided to write down rules and call them laws so a guy doesn't have to figure out through passive aggressive homicide what rules the drug dealer wants you to follow but is afraid to publicly announce.

    Frankly, this might be why the LP sometimes has problems recruiting in urban areas. Sometimes, the few people who claim to represent the community are just the most active people while most of the neighbors are afraid to contradict them.

  • Marty Feldman's Eyes||

    problems recruiting in urban areas. Sometimes, the few people who claim to represent the community are just the most active people while most of the neighbors are afraid to contradict them.

    Forget "urban" areas, heck this happens everywhere humans live.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You're talking about Somalia, aren't you?

  • Rich||

    BART currently has rules against eating and drinking; violations carry a fine of $250.

    Well, there's your problem. Make it $250,000 and 10 years in prison.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Burrito Bob has a point. I've been on plenty of public transit buses and trains where the seats are covered in crumbs, stains, and other food remnants. Plenty of times the slobs just leave their garbage sitting on the seat. Plus a lot of food can be smelly. What if the guy had been eating peanuts and someone in the train had an allergic reaction?

    There's a rational reason for the eating ban, so it should be enforced. Kind of hypocritical for Reason to complain about "snitching" when they praise snitches who report on minor violations of law by government.

  • Rich||

    Plenty of times the slobs just leave their garbage sitting on the seat.

    Just wait until facial recognition is *really* a thing.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Meh, I prefer facial rearrangement as a response to those fucks.

  • Rich||

    "Hey! Didn't you see the 'No Bleeding' sign?!"

  • Ben of Houston||

    I have to agree. The bus guy seems far more reasonable than the others. the "no food on the bus" isn't a trivial rule and it's there for a reason.

    Manners on both sides would have reduced this to a minor "There's a rule against that", "sorry, I guess I'll have it later", or even a "desperate situation, man, got to eat something".

  • Rock Lobster||

    "... the "no food on the bus" isn't a trivial rule..."

    Yes, it is.

  • Paloma||

    There was a video on my facebook feed of a girl inside the airport terminal with her dog, talking away on her cellphone right next to her a pile of shit where her dog took a dump. The video taker told her "hey, your dog took a dump."

    She flipped him off.

  • perlchpr||

    Looks like she needed to be housetrained. I think you rub their face in it to accomplish that.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Any neighbor who would walk their dog and not pick up the dog shit would find a pile of dog shit on their front porch the next morning.

    The few dog walking neighbors carry bags to pick up the dog shit now. Problem solved.

  • Longtobefree||

    You missed the main point; it was a bean burrito.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    I agree. No breast feeding either. Time and place, my friend.

    See how stupid that sounds?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Breast feeding a burrito?

  • Agammamon||

    There's a rational reason for the eating ban, so it should be enforced.

    You must be a judge. Because that's a 'rational basis' review of government regulations if I've ever heard one.

    Doens't matter if its a good reason. Doesn't matter if it satisfies a compelling government duty. Doesn't matter if its the least restrictive way to do that. Just - its a rationale so therefore you must obey. What's next? Public dress codes - because sometimes people wear inappropriate things in public therefore you have a rational reason to control what they wear.

    The problem is that cities don't allow competing mass transit operators - a private operator would hire someone to clean the buses/trains. Government just threatens to kill you if you leave garbage.

  • Agammamon||

    Plus, the 'he might have been eating peanuts and what if someone else was allergic!1!!!11' scenario is moronic.

    THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Fucking peanut allergy. If you are (or think you are) so dangerously sensitive that even the sight of peanuts will induce a coma, then wear a fucking space suit or stay home.

  • The_Hoser||

    Or private companies would just stop servicing the places where buses are most needed but come with the most problems, and then people would bitch there was no bus service.

    As for hiring someone to clean the buses/trains, I'm pretty they have that already. They just don't have butler service when the dickhead drops his shit all over the floor/seats and then it gets ground in all day or makes those seats unusable until the bus returns to the terminal.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Your common sense reasoning for no food or drink has no effect on the LINOs at Reason.

  • Agammamon||

    Oh, absolutely - all those private transport companies that are famously known for not serving ghettos.

    Oh, wait - those are taxi cab companies that are shielded from competition by strict licensing requirements. The ones that aren't serve anywhere there's paying customers. And so would private buses.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why would a private bus or car service want to serve customers who spill food and drink all over their vehicles? Or rob them constantly? Or assault drivers?

    Instead let's force taxpayers to pay for public transportation that become run down and smells of food with food and drink spills all over threats and floor. Fucking genius plan!

    Let's alienate the paying customers that don't cause trouble for the troublmakers. Fucking genius plan!

  • Ben of Houston||

    If it was a private bus company, then would you be saying the same thing? Most buses, public and private, have such a rule. Rules when using a city service is quite different from general laws. This is why banning smoking in government buildings is non-controversial, but banning it in all restaurants is a big deal.

  • Ben of Houston||

    If it was a private bus company, then would you be saying the same thing? Most buses, public and private, have such a rule. Rules when using a city service is quite different from general laws. This is why banning smoking in government buildings is non-controversial, but banning it in all restaurants is a big deal.

  • Imissbuckley||

    "Kind of hypocritical for Reason to complain about "snitching" when they praise snitches who report on minor violations of law by government."

    Not really no. Pretty sure the government official would be the hypocrite in that situation. If government officials are committing minor violations of laws they defend, created/and or enforce than they should be held accountable and held to a much higher standard than the average person who doesn't have a legal monopoly on force. And if government officials try to hide their law breaking, then yes they should be "snitched" on. Libertarians shouldn't have a problem with Whistle blowers who report on government abuses.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You cannot undermine rule of law when you are pointing out and correcting people's behavior via laws on public paid property.

    There is to be anarchy at all costs.

  • Imissbuckley||

    "You cannot undermine rule of law when you are pointing out and correcting people's behavior via laws on public paid property."

    Not sure what this has to do with government committing "minor violations" of the laws they enact and enforce. My argument is that Reason Magazine isn't being hypocritical when they praise folks who "snitch" on the government. If public officials want people to obey the many many rules, regulations, and laws they've enacted it would behoove them to also obey the "Rule of Law" themselves. And if they don't, they should be called out for it. And if Government violates the "Rule of Law" then whistle blowers, or "snitches" which is what Modus Pwnens decided to call them, should call them out for it. That is not anarchy (or chaos which is what I suspect you really mean).

    Furthermore as I stated below, you would have far greater respect for the Rule of Law if there were fewer laws on the books. Abolishing government control of things like public transit would help with that. It would also be much cheaper for the tax payers if there were fewer laws on the books to be enforced.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Michael Moore: I Will 'Surround The U.S. Capitol' With 'a Million Other People' to Stop Trump's SCOTUS Confirmation

    The progressive / libertarian alliance is more important now than ever. With Putin's Puppet eager to install another right-wing extremist on the Supreme Court, we libertarians must join with Democrats in using all legal means available to prevent this disaster. Contact your US Senators, and tell them no more SC appointments should be made until Mueller has completed his investigation. Attend a demonstration, especially if you live near DC. #Resist the illegitimate takeover of our nation's highest court however you can.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    He's just playing it safe. I think he could surround the capitol by himself.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Stop fat-shaming Michael Moore.

  • Scottzilla||

    No.

  • Longtobefree||

    Michael Moore has no shame. Haven't you been to one of his propaganda presentations called 'movies'?

  • perlchpr||

    Contact your US Senators, and tell them no more SC appointments should be made until Mueller has completed his investigation.

    Clearly, this is insufficient. No SC appointments should be made until the Citrus Hitler has left office. Even if that's another 6 years from now. If we end up having to limp along with 6 SC justices due to attrition, well, so be it.

  • Rock Lobster||

    But Jabba, why surround the Capitol with a million people when you can just hire a few bounty hunters?

  • SRVolunteer||

    My family has a membership at a community pool. We pay around $500 / year, plus every family is expected to volunteer about a half-dozen 'work hours' prepping the pool to open in the spring, close in the fall, or do general maintenance. Last year we also had a special assessment to buy a new pump. Our fees pay for lifeguards, insurance, supplies etc. Members can invite guests, but each guest costs $3, and you can't just pay and come in without a member to invite you. The pool also makes a bit of money by selling refreshments.

    The correct way to kick trespassers out of the pool is to call the cops, right? I mean, there was a day when a couple of adults could handle it, but if the kids aren't white, there's no way I would attempt it. Too much chance of ruining your life, right?

  • creech||

    No, the correct thing to do is to invite 100 million economic refugees from Central and South America, throw in Africa too, to come use your pool. And scream "racist" and "white supremacist" at any fellow members who object.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The correct thing is never buy into a housing subdivision that mismanages money and has a HOA.

  • SRVolunteer||

    Not sure if you're serious, but that neighborhood doesn't have an HOA.

    We used to live 2 doors down from the pool. The pool is operated as a nonprofit and anyone can join. But you have to buy a membership.

    About a year ago we moved a little more than 5 miles away, and we still renewed our membership this summer. There are a couple of closer pools we could join instead, but our kids have lots of friends at this place.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Never heard of a community pool for those not in the immediate community. I assumed it was an HOA that ran the pool.

    As you mentioned the problems with community locales that are not conducive to adults keeping things civil with kids that are not yours is your fear of life changing jack boots on your neck.

    People created this rule of man and are reaping what they sow.

    I enjoy my private pool heated with solar and invite whom I choose and can kick out whomever I choose.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Depends on how you define "community". A self-selected group or just the people who are found in a certain area?

  • SRVolunteer||

    Here's one of the local ones:

    http://lilyflaggpool.com/

  • gimmedatribeye||

    Why do you have to mention that the young girls in the Permit Patty and Pool Patrol Paula incidents were black?

  • ||

    Why was the Starbucks employee mentioned? That's an iffy one to me.

    Burrito Bob had a point but he's still a snitch because he used coercion via police. Instead of just making his peace and moving on he made a Federal case of it.

  • The_Hoser||

    Why was the Starbucks employee mentioned?

    Because the two guys who didn't buy anything, brought in their own water and wanted to use the private bathrooms were black, you racist!

  • Longtobefree||

    Prohibiting eating on public transit is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
    Diabetics must eat when their blood sugar drops, period.
    HIPPA prevents anyone from asking someone if they are diabetic, so anyone can eat on public transit.
    QED

  • IceTrey||

    HIPPA doesn't apply to Joe Average on the street.

  • Jerryskids||

    I see Trump's announced the Donald Trump Presents: SCOTUS Survivor! to be aired on all the major networks starting July 9th. I'm not sure how long the series is slated for and what the elimination challenges will be, but I've heard there's going to be a swimsuit competition. And at least one surprise guest star and a cameo appearance by Sandra Day O'Connor.

  • perlchpr||

    and a cameo appearance by Sandra Day O'Connor.

    In a swimsuit? *shudder*

  • Eddy||

    Oh, I'm sure he didn't make that announcement to in any way drum up public interest and keep attention laser-focused on himself.

  • Eddy||

    I don't get it. It's apparently not a compliment, so it's probably some kind of a diss. This is almost as bad as ignoring me.

  • Eddy||

    Oh, OK then. Carry on.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    THE LAW IS THE LAW!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    End public transportation or stop bothering other people on public transportation.

    Some food stinks up the whole train or bus.

    Its like assholes who bring a egg salad sandwich on an airplane and stink up the whole plane. Its why I fly first class.

    Avoid people like Tony and Buttplug.

  • Rock Lobster||

    People like Tony and Buttplug are legion.

    Especially in the HR racket.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    No, the law is an ASS.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    There was a situation with a nude Belgian model photo shoot when the pictures came out. I do not object to the photo shoot, because it was on a rooftop. If people are surprised by the naked pics, then you're not being naked in public. The outrage was a way to encourage her to follow social norms without actually putting her in jail or fining her. How many people here would snitch on her if she did a naked photo shoot in the subway car you were riding? Would it make a difference if she also enjoys burritos?

  • Agammamon||

    Why

    come

    there

    no

    pictures?

  • Rock Lobster||

    Now that is cute!

  • Agammamon||

    piggywiggywoo!

  • Eddy||

    "During her visit to Jerusalem in May, which coincided with Israel's Independence Day and the relocation of the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, Papen posed nude on a rooftop overlooking the Western Wall."

    Hmmm...you know, that might be construed as just a wee bit disrespectful.

  • Eddy||

    Was it too crowded at Yad Vashem for her to do her photo shoot there?

  • Echospinner||

    Kinda.. the wall is not just a tourist attraction it is a functioning synagogue and is open to anyone with the understanding of respectful dress and behavior. However she was on a rooftop not in the actual space.

    It does remind me of a similar rooftop incident that occurred right around that same spot.

    Samuel 2. Ch11

    2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite."

    We know the rest of the story and she knew exactly what she was doing.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So what? Presuming the roof top is privately owned and she had permission to be there, if you are offended that is YOUR problem.

    Or did Charlie Hedbo have it coming?

  • Eddy||

    "Or did Charlie Hedbo have it coming?"

    Yes, that makes sense, when I said she was "disrespectful" I was totally saying endorsing terrorism, it makes so much sense now.

    /sarc

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Its government transportation. The rule for food and drink is because some people are inconsiderate assholes.

    People dump food and drink on floors making them sticky and stink up the train car.

    Once you okay a public transportation scheme you are going to have rules to cater to the majority that use that public transportation and so people hopefully don't bother other people.

    End public transportation or accept that a few rules keep the assholes from constantly have people yell at them on the mode of transportation. Since you cannot carry a gun easily in Commifornia, its safer to call the cops than confront someone and appeal to their gown up side.

  • sarcasmic||

    Every arbitrary rule, no matter how seemingly insignificant, carries a potential death sentence for anyone who fails to show sufficient respect to the badge enforcing it.

    The point of the article was that police power, and these rules of man imposed upon society, should be limited.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Small government is best. End public transportation. Otherwise, as you correctly state, every law can lead to death via non-compliance. Technically police are not supposed to kill you unless you try and kill them , but I will give you that one.

    The point of the article was to bitch about rules that are reasonable since there are assholes like Buttplug who thinks everyone wants to smell and see his stinky butt dildo whipped out on a bus. People like you love to bitch about the Rule of Law because you dont want government anyway. So each example of government over-reach, because government is not following the Constitution, is ammo to end Rule of Law.

    LINOs bitch about the Rule of Law instead of demanding that taxpayers are not paying for government transportation schemes.

    End taxpayers subsidies of public transportation and let people use those tax savings to hire Uber or Lyft.

  • sarcasmic||

    This is like talking with Tony. I explain to him that government's role in the economy should be limited to enforcing property rights and contracts, and providing means of resolving disputes without violence, and he concludes that I want no government at all.

    Im sure you just concluded that I want no government because I support a role for government in the economy, which means I want no government.

    Or you are just lazy, since it is easier to plug your ears like a child and shout ANARCHIST than have a conversation like an adult.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're an anarchist, right? So no government.

    You dont want a voluntary group of representatives to have any laws for crimes or rules except to enforce contracts?

    So not anarchist and not Libertarian.

    What do you call this wonderful form of communal living?

    What about rules in court to hear contract disputes? Can your voluntary representatives make laws to handle those situations?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    He's an anarchist that wants be called Nanarchist or something silly like that.

    "I'm an anarchist but not an anarchist because I throw an "N" in front of a term to describe zero government" - Sarcasmic

  • sarcasmic||

    "As always, the statist authoritarian disguised as a libertarian–the true LINO–goes on the attack once he's been umasked."

    Yeah, that's about it.

    Calling me an anarchist is one of the dumbest thing I have seen in ten years.

  • sarcasmic||

    "You dont want a voluntary group of representatives to have any laws for crimes or rules except to enforce contracts?"

    Context, dood. As in government's role in the economy.

    I am afraid I must conclude that you are dishonest. Others have said you are but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. No more.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Answer the question dood- a government to enforce economic law has courts? In these courts, can a government then make rules to make sure the litigants behave themselves during a contact dispute?

  • sarcasmic||

    "In these courts, can a government then make rules to make sure the litigants behave themselves during a contact dispute?"

    You mean government enforcing basic rules of society like behaving one's self while resolving a dispute? Yes, of course.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Enforcing basic rules of society via "force"? What are those societal rules that are okay?

    You cannot eat in the courtroom or face a fine?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That the judge calls a bailiff over to demand your info to write you a ticket?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That if you refuse to give the info for a ticket or pay the fine, force can be used on you to punish you for not following non-economic rules?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Yea. A mini-anarchist gots nothing.

  • Agammamon||

    . . . rules to cater to the majority that use that public transportation . . .

    That's giving a lot of benefit of the doubt to the regulators. Its more likely, IMO, that these rules cater to a minority that use public transport or, more likely, to a minority that *don't* use public transport - but have the power to make rules the plebs are expected to enforce and so do so.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Everyone that rides public transportation love sitting and stepping in food and drink spills.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Duh, just outlaw spills.

    You're welcome.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Funny how LINOs just hate that Rule of Law but gloss over that there should not be public transportation paid for by taxpayer dollars.

  • sarcasmic||

    "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law."
    Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

    Some of us, unlike you, have kept our moral sense.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What YOU call moral sense. You are for NO laws since you are for no government.

    End public transportation or you are going to have rules on public transportation to keep offensive behavior from disrupting everyone else. It can prevents fights.

  • sarcasmic||

    Another Bastiat quote:

    "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."

    When I say that legislation that conflicts with the rules of society is not law, you conclude that I want no law.

    You may as well be a socialist. You sure worship government like one.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You know that I am not a socialist, so you saying that just makes you looks ridiculous.

    You don't want what America has as a government under the Constitution.

    Being pro-Constitutionally limited government is not worshiping government. I just just dont worship anarchy like you do. The system that I support has worked until people who want to destroy make it not work. Luckily, its being rolled back a bit and can be rolled back more.

  • IceTrey||

    Anarchy means "without rulers" not without government. If you are for the Constitution you are for tyranny because it allows for the government to initiate force.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Actually anarchy means this:
    an·ar·chy
    ˈanərkē
    1)a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority

    2)absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
    ———-
    Tyranny means the cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.

    The constitution is not considered cruel, unreasonable or an arbitrary use of power.

  • sarcasmic||

    Anarchy is a concatenation of 'an' and 'archon' meaning no central authority enforcing rules with violence.

    Thing is, neither slavery nor Jim Crow were in violation of the constitution. So by your own words you would have defended them both since they are "rule of law" and vilified anyone who objected, calling them anarchists and such. Because you gave up your moral sense.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Haha. You are making up your own definition. How anarchist of you.

    You think Rule of Law is a bad thing and most people disagree with you. You're cool tho, you're a mini-anarchist.

    Answer the question dood- a government to enforce economic law has courts? In these courts, can a government then make rules to make sure the litigants behave themselves during a contact dispute?

  • sarcasmic||

    "You think Rule of Law is a bad thing "

    No. I think rule of man is a bad thing.

    This is just stupid. I tell you that the role of government and legislation is to codify and enforce the rules of society, instead of imposing the rule of man upon society, and you say I want no government.

    You are a fucking idiot, and anyone who reads this will agree.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Rule of law and rule of man are two different things.

    Anarchists are fringe goofballs who latch onto libertarianism because we normally are accepting of your nonsense.

    I think it's funny that you cannot justify your anarchist tendencies but demand others justify theirs positions or suffer the wrath of Sarcasmic. The part-time sarcasm goober.

  • sarcasmic||

    Keep it up. Please. People will see you are dishonest without any help from me.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    People see that you cannot answer a simple dilemma question to your mini-anarchist positition.

  • IceTrey||

    mid 16th century: via medieval Latin from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos, from an- 'without' + arkhos 'chief, ruler.'

  • IceTrey||

    Any initiatory use of force is unreasonable. Many rulings based on the Commerce clause are arbitrary.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Most laws derived form the commerce clause are unconstitutional because they are arbitrary.

    If you are a criminal, you initiated force first. Government is reasonably resolving the the initiation of force via rule of law. If the laws are constitutional.

  • IceTrey||

    Except they are constitutional because the SC says they are.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They are not constitutional and the SCOTUS is wrong. Push back when the courts are wrong.

    You are ignoring corruption and then blaming Rule of Law based on our constitution which does not allow over half top the nonsense that are called laws.

  • IceTrey||

    How can you claim to be a constitutionalist yet not except the rulings of the SC which the constitution declares the final arbiter?

  • sarcasmic||

    Everyone here knows I'm not an anarchist. Calling me one makes you look ridiculous.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're an Nanarchist, which is anarchist. Nobody accepts your change of the word anarchist by calling it Mini-anarchist。

  • sarcasmic||

    The anarchists on this board would never call me one. So your accusations are false, tiresome, and serve no purpose other than to make you look like a retard.

    So if you want people to think you are retarded, keep it up.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You're The retard that gets caught over and over being a non-Libertarian anarchist discussing nonsense on here.

  • sarcasmic||

    If you polled everyone here, not a single person would call me an anarchist except you.

    So keep it up. The only one who you are making to look like a fool is yourself.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Most people on here don't even know or care about you. You despise libertarianism and evidently the constitution because slavery was constitutional and Its not now.

    Jim Crowe laws were unconstitutional but upheld by racists judges. Jim crowe laws forced people and businesses to do things they didn't want to. Those illegal laws violated everything about freedom of association.

    I bet you have a dilemma in Nanarchy-land about courts that hear contract disputes on whether they can have rules to force litigants to behave themselves in court.

  • sarcasmic||

    Keep it up.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    thanks for your permission.

    I guess you're not an anarchist, as you seem very bossy like a lefty.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah. I want no government, I want total government, blah diddy blah blah.

    When you are ready to take your fingers out of your ears and stop shouting, let me know.

    Until then you are showing the maturity of a child in daycare.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You don't know what you want just like a child.

  • sarcasmic||

    You don't know what I want because you're shouting insults with your fingers jammed into your ears. Grow up.

  • IceTrey||

    Objective morality comes from nature. It is not subject to whim.

  • Agammamon||

    You do know that government does not make laws, right?

    Government legislates. The best governments simply legislate what is already existing law - ie, codifies already existing social dynamics.

  • sarcasmic||

    Rut ro

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You two cut form the same cloth. That nonsense about law and legislation.

  • sarcasmic||

    Your inability to understand something doesn't make it nonsense.

  • Imissbuckley||

    You're right there shouldn't be government based public transportation. I think "LINOs", whatever those are, libertarians and other small government types would have a lot less hate for "the Rule of Law" if there were far less rules and laws on the books. And I think limiting government's involvement in our day to day lives, including getting rid of public transit, would help in that effort of repealing laws. The less laws and rules on the books the more respect you'll have for the Rule of Law, which will make it easier to enforce, and much less expensive for the tax payers.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    LINOs are libertarians in name only. Nick Gillespie is one of those. Someone who goes around acting libertarian but when they talk it's lefty themes. With Gillespie and some other Reason staff there is butt sex, drugs, and Mexicans throw in to sound Libertarian.

    Upon closer inspection their drug position is to ignore drug laws and avoid ever getting all drug laws declared unconstitutional. Open borders without consent of the the governed is just more ignoring the Rule of Law because you hate the law.

    There is a problem with too many laws. That is Rule of Man. The constitution is the supreme law of this land and ignoring it allows for man to institute a bunch of arbitrary law. we find ourselves with a nanny and police state because politician ignore that supreme law of the land.

  • Imissbuckley||

    "Upon closer inspection their drug position is to ignore drug laws and avoid ever getting all drug laws declared unconstitutional."

    While I agree with your interpretation of what the rule of law should be but that doesn't seem to be the interpretation of many if not most originalists or conservatives on the bench.

    The courts have already upheld most of our drugs laws as constitutional. For example in Gonazles v. Raich, led in part by Scalia an originalist, the SC declared federal enforcement of our federal drug laws against a purely intrastate market as constitutional. Therefore our drug laws, at least according to the interpretation of both originalists and progressives on the bench, are the Rule of Law.

    The only reason Congress is even considering changing our drug laws, specifically in regard to cannabis, is because the States are refusing to enforce federal law, because the voters in those states no longer support the federal laws on cannabis. And the only reason why Trump is considering signing legislation to change the CSA is because Senator Cory Gardner of CO is holding up appointments, and Trump wants to stick a finger in Sessions' eye.

    Politicians who ignore the Supreme Law of the Land appoint and approve of the judges who sit on the bench and interpret the Supreme Law of the Land. How do we get these laws declared unconstitutional or even changed without going in the direction of a Colorado and outright defying federal law?

  • sarcasmic||

    How do we get these laws declared unconstitutional or even changed without going in the direction of a Colorado and outright defying federal law?

    Sometimes defying unjust legislation en masse is the only way to get our rulers to back off. In fact I'd go so far as to say society has a duty to ignore such legislation. To ignore it in daily life, and to engage in jury nullification in court.

  • IceTrey||

    The States also don't want to have to collect all those taxes in cash.

  • IceTrey||

    How is the Constitution not the Rule of Man? It was given to us by a burning bush?

  • Sevo||

    OT:

    "Protesters march against Trump immigration policies"
    [...]
    "Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren is calling for swift reunification of children and parents in a Massachusetts immigration rally.
    Warren said today, "This is about children held in cages." She also said, "This is about mamas who want their children back," to chanting crowds.
    Thousands of people opposed to President Donald Trump's controversial policy of separating migrant families are in Boston for two planned protests. Warren recently visited a Border patrol processing center in McAllen, Texas."
    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_
    coverage/2018/06/protesters_march_
    against_trump_immigration_policies

    These would be the polices which Trump initiated in Sept, 2016, some 6 months before he took office.
    The guy is AMAZING!

  • The_Hoser||

    "Sen. Warren then did a rain dance and passed the hat, but got little to no wampum. One onlooker who yelled 'Show us your tits!' was beaten to death."

  • IceTrey||

    What's so stupid about these people is they could have made the calls away from the incident and no one would have known who they were!

  • swampwiz||

    Now I am not a race hustler by any means, but it seems that every one of the perps here is black. Hmm ...

  • Echospinner||

    Some people are just assholes and there is no getting around it.

    I live in an HOA. It was fine when we got here but some busybodies moved in, took over and ruined all the fun. They created new rules and began enforcing others we previously ignored so long as no harm done. Our shared park space which is on the small lake would on a day like today have been filled with kids, families, people fishing and boating, neighbors having a few beers and so on. Now it is rarely used unless someone has a planned event. It looks nice but mostly empty. So sad.

    No dogs is one rule. Screw them, I take the Labrador down there to splash and swim around so long as it is not bothering anyone. Let them arrest me and the dog. I might even fish off the dock, good spot (another no no).

    Libertarians are willing to accept that life is not perfect. Other people may to some annoying things like burrito guy but so what? Liberty is not easy. What makes libertarians unique is our focus on the individual rather that trying to create a government enforced system of rules that would solve every problem. That is not possible and only creates more disharmony.

  • sarcasmic||

    Be careful. Anything but total worship of god government will earn you the wrath of lc1789 who will shout ANARCHIST LINO while ignoring what you actually say. You see, by ignoring stupid rules instead of overturning them you have no respect for the law, want no law, and no government. In fact you are a leftist pretending to be a libertarian. Even though you never said any of those things, lc will shout it at you over and over and drown out anything you might actually say. Right lc?

  • Echospinner||

    The 28th amendment

    "The rights of dogs to splash, muddify, retrieve tennis balls from, or otherwise access any standing body of water, puddle, river or stream shall not be infringed upon."

    Fixed it.

  • moneytron3000||

    oh it's East Germany all over again

  • jdgalt1||

    The only thing Starbucks did wrong was to question the rightful manager who threw the punks out of his store.

  • ||

    BART currently has rules against eating and drinking; violations carry a fine of $250.

    I thought public transportation was specifically for those occasions when you're too drunk or otherwise incapacitated to drive yourself?

  • Mark22||

    You're supposed to get drunk before you get on BART.

    There are no rules against vomiting on BART, however.

  • artfuldodger||

    From what I take to be a libertarian perspective, I really can't see the problem with some of these cases. OK, BART is state run and could therefor deregulate, especially with petty rules; ideally BART would be privatized. But, privatized transport companies often have similar asinine rules. I really don't see how the case at Starbucks is problematic? It's a private establishment that has rules against loitering. Should they have called the cops? Probably not. But, respect for property rights means that using others property will often entail having to accept and abide by rules that the property owners put down. So, in the cases where these places were state owned, they could be privatized. But, even if they were, we shouldn't expect some kind of anarchistic utopia where no rules apply.There can be sound reasons against loitering, eating in mass transport, starting fires in certain areas, etc.

  • vek||

    So some of these sound pretty dumb, and hard to get why people would be so petty... BUT if one were to ACTUALLY look into the nitty gritty details, would one find out it was exactly like the Starbucks case? As in the people who called the cops were in the right, and the fuckwad "oppressed" black people were in the wrong?

    Because that's totally the case there. They were trespassing on Starbucks property, dressed like scrubs, refused to buy anything or even be polite to the employees which actually DID try to be nice at first. They then refused to leave PRIVATE PROPERTY when asked to... So the female manager (probably intimidated by two big, scrubby, rude black guys) was forced to call the cops. They refused to leave when the cops asked them too. If they had done the polite and reasonable thing at ANY point in the situation they would not have been arrested. But they refused to be decent human beings.

    Slanted story telling can be a hell of a thing. I'm not surprised virtue signalling Reason is STILL pushing the WRONG interpretation of the Starbucks case. Was the burrito guy slopping burrito all over the train like a pig? Were the guys at the pool drunk, stoned out of their minds, chain smoking Newports 5 feet away from little kids refusing to be polite? I don't have the time to look into all the cases, but I wouldn't be surprised if some or all of them were at least somewhat more reasonable upon closer inspection.

  • vek||

    I'm sooo sick and tired of even Reason slanting the fuck out of all their articles, ALWAYS in a virtue signally proggie way. I used to come here to get news that was somewhat de-spun compared to the MSM... But Reason largely doesn't do that anymore. They run with false narratives that fit their agenda just as bad as CNN does.

    Probably fully 3/4 of the "innocent" "fine upstanding" young black men that have been shot by cops pretty much had it coming because of their horrible decisions. Now the other 1/4 totally didn't, like the black concealed carry guy in the upper midwest somewhere... But according to the black Harvard scientists study cops are actually MORE LIKELY to escalate to violence against white perps, so I doubt there's anything racial in that other 1/4 of cases. Just regular old police assholeishness. Yet I'd never know ANY OF THIS if I just relied on Reason to actually report things correctly. I'd also believe that two "well dressed" black businessmen were tossed out of a Starbucks by a mean old racist white women, when they were just trying to swing their bajillion dollar real estate deal... Basically all of which is bullshit.

    Look Reason, on the internet people can find out the truth on things... So why don't you just report on the objective truth, then you wouldn't catch so much flack from your own readers anymore. You could actually have journalistic integrity again, which is hard to come by nowadays. Try it, it'll be good!

  • Crazy mick||

    Reminder to everyone... unless you're witnessing a serious crime in progress don't call the cops. Only a matter of time until one of these chickenshit calls ends like the Aussie woman in Minnesota. Cops aren't known for their restraint and sound judgement

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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