"... a nose dive in low-level policing... Citations for traffic violations fell by 94 percent... for low-level offenses like public drinking and urination also plunged 94 percent... parking violations are way down, dropping by 92 percent...."
The NY Post reports.
৩০ ডিসেম্বর, ২০১৪
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
৪২৭টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 427 এর 201 – থেকে 400 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»D.D. Wrote:
so if I have a store, and you are conducting business illegally in front of my store, why should I not be able to call cops and get you to conduct business elsewhere?
This is begging the question. The act is only "illegal" because of the BS law. It should not be illegal for two consenting adults to sell each other cigarettes without first asking the Crown for permission.
The law is in place to "protect" businesses from competition. Don't know if you are a lefty or a conservative. If you are a lefty, you get a pass from me. You are expected to be economically ignorant and to love the regulatory state. We just have to agree to disagree.
If you are a conservative: for shame. Conservatives are supposed to understand what capitalism is and to, you know, like the free market.
I am for free markets. Since when did that mean we support the black market over the free market? What state does that? That's complete bullcrap.
A free market requires those competing to have the same access , which requires them to follow the same laws. I'm not opposed to people selling cigaretttes. And even competing over the sales. They still have to follow the law to do so. And there are plenty of stores out there doing exactly that. Selling cigarettes. They are following the law when doing so,
David, if a cop uses a stun gun he is not using lethal force on someone. if someone shoots them in the face they are. however, sometimes even when not applying what is perceived as non lethal force, people still die. Do you not get the distinction David?
Deadly force is defined as:
An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.
they are allowed to use deadly force in narrow circumstances. In the case of Wilson, he WAS using deadly force. But his defense was Brown was charging him and he feared for his life.
In the case of Garner, cops were not using deadly force. Did they think it was likely that merely bringing him to the ground was going to cause serious harm or death? Does someone using a stun gun think thet by using that it will lead to deaths? That's the whole,point why you would use a stun gun and not a gun. So that you can subdue someone as opposed to kill someone. However, as has been stated by critics of stun guns and tasers, people have died when they've been tased.it doesn't happen often but it does happen.
The use of deadly force requires intent to kill.
jr565 said...
"If you fire the cops who's going to do the cop work?"
Isn't there an H1N visa for that?
d.d. Wrote:
this is begging the question. The act is only "illegal" because of the BS law. It should not be illegal for two consenting adults to sell each other cigarettes without first asking the Crown for permission.
your view of business doesn't correspond to how any state conducts business in this country.
If you sell stuff in this country you have to adhere to the laws that govern the sale of said goods. If you are a store and want to sell stuff you have to rent a place. And have to follow various laws when setting up your business. Otherwise you can't open. If you break the law when selling stuff you will be fiend and may even lose your ability to sell in the future. If a street vendor wants to set up shop and sell stuff they can't sell anywhere. They have to get permission first. And have to get a license. Certsinly in NY, but I'd imagine even in the reddest states. You can only sell legally. Otherwise you run afoul of the law.
First and foremost in any legal sales is you gotta pay the taxes to the govt when you sell goods. Whatever the tax laws are in the state,mehats what you have to pay. If you are a legitimate business you recognize it as a valid business expense. Which is why republicans always want business taxes to be lower. Because that will spur growth. But Ther is no assumption that said taxes are optional. Texas doesn't say you can sell cigarettes and pay the taxes to the state OR you can violate the law and sell however you want.
"A test question for Roger or DD would be something like "why should an individual get to decide for themselves which commerical regulations serve valid purposes (public safety, etc) and which don't, when we live in a democracy and citizens have options for both voice and exit, and in which the concept of rule of law implies a contract between/among citizens to respect laws and regulations.""
My sad answer is basically an individual shouldn't. But in a better world, there wouldn't be so many bad laws, laws that have more costs than benefits, laws that force people to pay or hire fixers to do relatively safe things.
The use of deadly force requires intent to kill or the assumption that the use of force is likely to kill, That should say.
D.D let's say that NY is a blue state, and TX is more of a red state. Does it require licenses? well let's look:
https://texaswideopenforbusiness.com/start-business
They too make the distinction between the legal business and the illegal one. The differnce is, they want lower taxes and fewer regulations. But that doesn't mean anyone can sell booze out of the back of their touch..
And if someone doesn't follow the rules laid out in TX? They are an illegal business. And the law SHOULD go after them by default.
So how would Garner fare in TX?
Step 1: Business Structure and Name
Determine the legal structure of the business and properly file the business name with the state. - Nope, didn't do that.
Step 2: Business Tax Responsibilities
Determine the potential tax responsibilities of the new business on the federal, state, and local level.- he didn't so that on any level. He actually assumed NO responsibilities for taxes.
Step 3: Business Licenses and Permits by Business Type -
Determine necessary licenses, permits, certifications, registrations, and/or authorizations for a specific business on the federal, state, and local level. - Did he have any licenses to sell cigarettes? How about permits? No, and no. did he have any licenses or permits to sell anything on the street? No, and no.
Now, let's look at the businesses that did go through step one through three. Shouldn't the law protect them over someone who violates legal business fundamentally? garner could have sold cigarettes.
In TX too he'd be a violator of the law, and I imagine th cops would have gone after him there too. Those aren't bullshit laws being enforced by the way. Those are the laws that regulate commerce. And which help bring tax revenue to the state.
Cops are pigs. Fuck them. They show their worthless reality when they behave like the shits that they are.
Good Lord, are you still at it, jr?
jr565 said...
"This is why I said when there was discussion of pot legalization that its not going to work the way the libertarians want. If it's legal its regulated. Like all business in this country .Same with cigarettes. If its regulated then not every dealer can sell it. he has to become an official seller, otherwise he still runs afoul of the law. Even when it's a legal product.
When libertarians argue about the costs of the war on drugs I think what they really are arguing against are the costs of legal business."
I love this discussion. I am right in the middle of it now. I am a partner in an I-502 recreational producer/processor in Washington State which means I can grow and sell marijuana to the licensed retailers. Last year the state did nothing to reign in the medical marijuana industry which is completely unregulated. There is obvious conflict here.
In medical the price was around $8-$12 a gram depending on quality at retail. People are still getting about $2,000 a pound wholesale. Costs are much lower in general.
In recreational the price per gram is $15-$20 at the retail level. The state gets about 53-55% of that due to the VAT style excise taxes. We have paid over $150,000 in excise taxes over the last 6 months and we still had to pull money out of personal savings to make payroll this month.
We have also cut our employee hours down to less than when I ran a medical op a quarter the size and they get paid less. We are still short on our quarterly payroll taxes. Those have been around $40,000 over the last 6 months.
We haven't even bothered to calculate the federal taxes because one nobody really knows and two if you go by current interpretation they basically want 35% of our gross revenue because of the 280e issue. We could lower that by about 80% of our payroll and some electricity costs. But they say they aren't going to allow us to deduct the excise tax. That would come in around $100,000.
We have invested around $200,00-$300,000 not including a year of our lives. We have 3 licenses to run the business, at least 4 ancillary licenses like a re-seller's permit and a class 2 alcohol license.
We have inventory now that even at $4-$6 a gram will not move because retailers don't want the inventory in their system because they get taxed on their inventory. Because we are under the 280e section of the tax code the retailers don't get to deduct cost of goods and producers are limited in what we can deduct. So in effect the feds are going to try to take about 30-40%. Blood from a turnip at this point.
When you talk about the cost of legal business, I don't think you even know what you are talking about. You are spinning out straw men just as fast as the progressives.
This is great news. I guess they can lay off a bunch of judges and court employees and defense lawyers can start to look for more honest work [heh kidding with you just a bit].
EMD said...
Let it be known that Garage is funnier than Madisonfella.
Garage actually makes me laugh from time to time.
It's because garage has absolutely no idea he's unintentionally funny.
When madisonfella tries to be funny he's just lame.
jr565 said...
"Now, let's look at the businesses that did go through step one through three. Shouldn't the law protect them over someone who violates legal business fundamentally?"
1. A state passes a tax where they essentially take 70-80% of the revenue of the legal business, which is what they take for cigs in New York.
2. Then it sends people out with guns and a monopoly on force to stop competition.
3. Profits? The mob had more honor.
"In TX too he'd be a violator of the law, and I imagine the cops would have gone after him there too. Those aren't bullshit laws being enforced by the way. Those are the laws that regulate commerce. And which help bring tax revenue to the state."
There wouldn't be a black market in Texas because the cigarette taxes aren't extortionate. You are defending a protection scheme here.
r565 said...
D.D driver wrote:
Without question individuals do not get to choose. The law is what it is. There are plenty of BS laws, we each have to follow the law or face the consequences. But one of those consequences shouldn't be major injury or death. Five bucks says that JR broke some law on his way to work today. He should not die for his "lawlessness."
If I resist, I bring the potential for violence on myself.
12/30/14, 5:39 PM
You would have been a real hoot back in 65 in Selma Al.
jr565 said...
"I am for free markets. Since when did that mean we support the black market over the free market? What state does that? That's complete bullcrap."
At some point you have to admit the government oversteps. The Boston Tea Party could be, and is by me, considered foundational. There needs to be consent by more than just a majority.
I am not paying a fine or buying an expensive insurance policy. I will claim the VA covers me which it kinda does. Obamacare is bullshit. I didn't want it. It isn't constitutional. Most of the public doesn't want it. It is garbage. But the IRS is going to send local police out to arrest people that don't pay.
If people do not willingly pay their taxes you have Greece and Spain where tax delinquency has been quoted around 20-30% though it is hard to get a firm number obviously. They are democracies where a majority can, and has, decided they can confiscate the wealth of others. The others just don't comply and we argue about who the police should arrest.
A free society requires almost everyone to buy in and willingly comply or else you get a police state. That means limited government where 90+% of the population accepts the governments role in that area. Conservatives seem to like police states where a majority or in some cases an interested minority can tax something and send the police out to enforce it.
Rusty said...
"When madisonfella tries to be funny he's just lame."
That's not a he...
Blogger Achilles said...
jr565 said...
"Now, let's look at the businesses that did go through step one through three. Shouldn't the law protect them over someone who violates legal business fundamentally?"
1. A state passes a tax where they essentially take 70-80% of the revenue of the legal business, which is what they take for cigs in New York.
2. Then it sends people out with guns and a monopoly on force to stop competition.
3. Profits? The mob had more honor."
People assume there are only five Mob families in NYC but in reality there are six, the sixth being the City and the NYPD among it's other duties is the sixth family's enforcer.
I read your tale of woe and while I can sympathize with you I do have to ask, what the hell where you thinking when you decided to get into the MJ business? You should have seen that coming ten miles away.
All this proves that the people saying that most NYPD cops are honest are demonstratively wrong. They are still taking the paycheck but refusing to do what they are paid to do.
What's all this malarkey about what conservatives want or desire in law enforcement as the root of the problem here?
NYC is run by progressive Democrats and their pet unions. They can stew in what they've created. Including the revolt of the police union.
"perps don't have the authority to arrest my mom."
That's not the question. The cops applied excessive force to a man pleading for his fucking life and the man died. That's lethal force.
"Lethal force would be the cops shooting him, or striking him in the head with batons. They used the necessary force to subdue him and his heart failed. That isn't using 'lethal force". The cops intent was not to kill him, but to arrest him."
Okay. You win. If we redefine lethal force so narrowly that it only includes instances where the cops are actually trying to kill you. George Orwell on line 3.
The man was pleading for his life and the cops showed complete disregard for human life. It homicide, by definition. Was it "justifiable homicide"?
I don't see it. If I were I cop, I'd want to denounce the assholes that killed Gardner. Instead the cops rally around the assholes and try to argue that what they did was a-okay. Maybe if cops showed just a modicum of common sense and basic decency in this case the public would have a better attitude towards them.
"What's all this malarkey about what conservatives want or desire in law enforcement as the root of the problem here?"
It's hardly "malarkey." Phony "conservatives" seem to be the first ones to rush to the defense of piece of shit cops. As someone who actually believe in small government, this drives me crazy.
Maybe if cops showed just a modicum of common sense and basic decency in this case the public would have a better attitude towards them.
I don't believe a majority "public" now has a problem with what the cops did when all facts are considered. I myself had a strong "that's wrong" reaction when it first broke. But the subsequent actions of protestors, the revenge killings, and recalcitrant rants like yours tipped the balance.
I don't believe a majority "public" now has a problem with what the cops did when all facts are considered.
Bullshit. Any and every decent person who watches this should be appalled:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-xHqf1BVE4
The Dontre Hamilton case in Milwaukee was far, far more egregious than the Gardner case, too. How did the police union respond when MPD unquestionably did the correct thing and fired the killer cop?
"A test question for Roger or DD would be something like "why should an individual get to decide for themselves which commerical regulations serve valid purposes (public safety, etc) and which don't, when we live in a democracy and citizens have options for both voice and exit, and in which the concept of rule of law implies a contract between/among citizens to respect laws and regulations."
Answer: There needs to be a huge super majority decision to use a monopoly on force to enforce something. A bare majority is not enough. A motivated and greedy minority like in New York is certainly not enough.
Requiring business licenses with negligible fees? Sure. Requiring a level of adherence to public safety and generally keeping the peace? Sure. As long as you can get 70-85% of the population to buy in you are golden. We all benefit from being able to walk home with a reasonable sense of security. We all benefit from the right of self defense. We all benefit from Bob the scumbag not selling 5ths in the middle school parking lot.
As soon as you start getting into sin taxes where one group of people decides another group needs to be punished for life choices? Not cool using a monopoly on force for that. Anything over 20% of someones income to cover government is extortion. Taking money from one person and giving it to another person is not a valid use of the state monopoly on violence.
cubanbob said...
"I read your tale of woe and while I can sympathize with you I do have to ask, what the hell where you thinking when you decided to get into the MJ business? You should have seen that coming ten miles away."
It seems obvious to some extent. We were counting on the States greed to overcome incompetence and take out the medical last year. They did nothing. So we were forced to directly compete with unregulated untaxed product across the street from ours.
I expect them to follow through on their promise to "regulate" medical early this session. They are too greedy not to. But I think it is too late. I will be hedging bets starting soon. It is clear most people are not willing to pay the cost of government and will buy the untaxed cheaper product if they have the choice.
Achilles,
I have a feeling you and I are going to meet someday. Not too far off.
When we do, I will remind you of this post and when you claim that you have a legal business that shouldn't have all of its assets seized, I'll remind you, as I have here and now, that you never had a legal business and that the supreme court has upheld the federal drug laws.
In other words, you'd be wise to get out of the illegal drug trade now, before you and I meet.
chickelit said...
Maybe if cops showed just a modicum of common sense and basic decency in this case the public would have a better attitude towards them.
"I don't believe a majority "public" now has a problem with what the cops did when all facts are considered. I myself had a strong "that's wrong" reaction when it first broke. But the subsequent actions of protestors, the revenge killings, and recalcitrant rants like yours tipped the balance."
It is possible to be against revenge killings of cops and a police state where cops cause the death of people over selling un-taxed cigarettes at the same time. That you have resorted to this type of argument shows you cannot counter ours.
The link to the video has been posted again. It was obvious negligence. I am not advocating jail time for the cops but there should be lost pay, demotions, and a general acceptance that you don't condone that conduct from the people you trust with a monopoly on force. We had people fired and sent to E Co for similar things overseas.
eric said...
Achilles,
"I have a feeling you and I are going to meet someday. Not too far off.
When we do, I will remind you of this post and when you claim that you have a legal business that shouldn't have all of its assets seized, I'll remind you, as I have here and now, that you never had a legal business and that the supreme court has upheld the federal drug laws.
In other words, you'd be wise to get out of the illegal drug trade now, before you and I meet."
Bring it.
The House just defunded all federal efforts to enforce drug laws in states with medical laws in effect. Please come and harass me. You are acting against large majorities of every major poll taken on the subject. Medical Marijuana polls out somewhere around 85% approval in Washington State. I502 only polled lower because people thought the regulations would hurt access.
I will make more money suing the government than I have running this business. It will be easier to find 12 people finding you responsible for legitimate loss of revenue than it will be for you to find 12 people to put us in jail.
The people do not think the fed's should have the power you are so wantonly threatening to use. You are using absolutely unconstitutional seizure laws to threaten someone you disagree with. Vast majorities here disagree with you.
We are peaceful citizens.
When I see you I will call you a disgusting statist thug. Feel shame when you look in the mirror.
And yet, none of that foot stomping or fit throwing is going to keep your assets from being seized, or yourself from doing serious prison time.
Seriously, you seem like a smart guy. Do the wise thing.
Achilles said...
cubanbob said...
"I read your tale of woe and while I can sympathize with you I do have to ask, what the hell where you thinking when you decided to get into the MJ business? You should have seen that coming ten miles away."
It seems obvious to some extent. We were counting on the States greed to overcome incompetence and take out the medical last year. They did nothing. So we were forced to directly compete with unregulated untaxed product across the street from ours.
I expect them to follow through on their promise to "regulate" medical early this session. They are too greedy not to. But I think it is too late. I will be hedging bets starting soon. It is clear most people are not willing to pay the cost of government and will buy the untaxed cheaper product if they have the choice.
12/30/14, 11:56 PM "
Dude in business there is a maximum that goes as this: "your best loss is your first loss".
Your mistake number one is confusing 'decriminalization' with legalization. Your state lied and is going to stiff you again.
Mistake number two is more often than not when being among the first in a new industry odds are you are going to be on the bleeding edge instead of the leading edge. Should have let someone else be the pioneer and let them take the hits and from there you learn the pitfalls.
Mistake number three is to ever believe that legal MJ will become a really profitable legal business cause the business model just doesn't exist. Even if every state and the feds made MJ legal the very self-same greedy government bastards are going to tax it so high that there will always be Eric Gardener's selling MJ at a price you can't compete with. It's a lot easier to grow MJ on your own than to make booze and cigarettes yourself.Hence the number of people selling good stuff without the tax and regulatory overhead is just too great. And most of your potential customers are already used to buying from an Eric Gardener so they aren't all that risk averse and are probably willing to go the off the books market than pay legal prices. And your friend the State will definitely find you and fine you if you actually were doing any substantial amount of business.
Cubanbob,
Not only is the State of Washington lying to him, but so is the federal government.
Obama is doing the worst possible thing with non enforcement. This leads guys like him to build up his business, build up his wealth, and make himself a juicier target for when administrations and attorneys general change.
The gold medal prize of all federal agencies is asset forfeiture. If you have millions in assets, we will spend almost as much to seize it. Your home. Your cars. Your bank accounts. Your toys. Anything that has value. Its like putting candy in front of a baby.
You think he hates guys like me now and is a peaceful citizen (which I'm not sure what that has to do with anything) wait until he works two more years, accrues a bunch of assets and a successful business, and has all that taken away, including his freedom.
eric said...
"And yet, none of that foot stomping or fit throwing is going to keep your assets from being seized, or yourself from doing serious prison time.
Seriously, you seem like a smart guy. Do the wise thing."
You have got to be joking. You can call it foot stomping if you want, but you are a statist scumbag. You should feel shame for even using threats like this.
First I still have the right to a trial by jury of my peers before you send me to jail. Find 12 people in this state who will send a Vet to jail so you can take his stuff and buy a new cruiser.
Second we are smart enough not to use free assets. You can have the mortgages when you take the assets. Hint: we don't own them the bank does.
Third we follow prosecutions closely and there is communication with the NW Drug Task force. The WSLCB has had massive multi-acre UNLICENSED operations pointed out to them. I can show you 10 huge grows near us. There are more pot dispensaries than starbucks. There aren't any federal crackdowns coming. The House, Senate, and President made that clear. No state agency will touch a medical business, much less a state licensed business.
If the Fed's do crack down you are probably talking about 5-10% of the population. Possession rates are much higher. Nobody likes you. Nobody agrees with you. I am not worried.
You guys are getting all overwrought about this. I'm sure the NYPD is still enforcing the really important laws...like the one against dancing in clubs that haven't paid the bribe for a cabaret license.
eric said...
"The gold medal prize of all federal agencies is asset forfeiture. If you have millions in assets, we will spend almost as much to seize it. Your home. Your cars. Your bank accounts. Your toys. Anything that has value. Its like putting candy in front of a baby.
You think he hates guys like me now and is a peaceful citizen (which I'm not sure what that has to do with anything) wait until he works two more years, accrues a bunch of assets and a successful business, and has all that taken away, including his freedom."
You are a joke. Marijuana most likely wont be schedule 1 next year, but latest both presidential candidates in 2016 will endorse federal decriminalization and it will be passed before the election or shortly thereafter. Romney said it was a states rights issue. The House REPUBLICANS defunded your enforcement regime and Obama signed it. The polls all show that the public is done with prohibition. No administration of either party is going to crack down. Marijuana will be legal before you get your chance to steal my stuff.
Achilles,
If you're starting a pharmacy, I don't think you'll have any issue.
If you believe the Federal Government and the FDA aren't going to regulate the legal use of medical marijuana, I think you might want to stop smoking your own product and realize what country you're living in.
Your best case scenario is that they turn it into a Schedule II drug and allow people to get it via prescription.
But somehow I don't think that's going to end up being a smoked joint.
SGT Ted; It is easier for folks like David to hate cops than to understand their tactics. Basically, they resent authority and are undisciplined in their behavior. They lack the self-discipline required to function in a high-stress environment and are walking "marks" whose luck will eventually run out and they will face evil. That is what it will take for them to understand the importance of the men and women in Blue...if they survive. Then they will whine that it took too long for the cops to save them. Pathetic.
I want to thank Eric for illustrating one of my key points: not all cops are heroes. Many are. But there are far too many that are just very stupid men on a power trip. Some are incompetent bumblefucks with a gun. And some are outright violent thugs.
Story out of Cleveland last week about a cop who got drunk at a bar, groped women, was asked to leave, and pulled out his gun. Good new, he actually got fired! Bad news, the union successfully got him his job back. The unions argument was that Officer Gropey wasn't the biggest asshole on the force and the other assholes got to keep their jobs so it "wasn't fair" that he got fired. These are some of the thing you get to do without losing you job in Cleveland:
"The officers cited in the other cases have committed assaults, domestic violence, theft, felony offenses, untruthfulness, and other violent crimes, and have been allowed to keep their jobs with the city," the Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association argued in arbitration hearings.
Specifically, CPPA president Jeffrey Follmer referred to separate cases in which:
one officer pulled his wife out of her car and fired off eight shots into it because he did not want her to get the car in a divorce settlement;
another got drunk and threatened his girlfriend with a shotgun;
another officer shot his gun "in a threatening manner" while intoxicated;
an officer pulled his gun during a drunken wedding fight;
a female officer smeared animal feces on her own apartment walls during a rent dispute, and told her landlord to pick her keys up at the department's gun range;
another officer fled the scene of an accident after he hit a man on a motorcycle.
When the "hero" cops stop protecting the stupid power hungry jerks, the bumblefucks, and the outright thugs, then maybe they deserve our respect. Right now, too many of them don't seem to want you to respect them, they want you to fear them. Take a look at Eric as Exhibit A.
Oh yeah, here's the link:
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/12/cleveland_police_union_defends.html
These are your Heroes In Blue (TM).
Why do conservatives see extortion by a public employees' union as a good thing?
Ok, I was sympathetic to law enforcement.
Until Eric showed up.
Certified malicious liar Al Sharpton is a buddy of and advisor to de Blasio. Sharpton is hated by most of the NYPD because of the Tawana Brawley rape hoax when Sharpton tried to frame police officers for a rape that never occurred.
This blue flu is a reaction to the assassination of two police officers, but it also is a broken camel's back issue: de Blasio's relationship with certified malicious liar Al Sharpton is a constant poke in the eye for NYPD officers. Milwaukee County's Sheriff Clarke has something to say about de Blasio and Sharpton (and Obama and Holder, too) along this line - “Al Sharpton is a vulgar human being. He is divisive and he spews hate.”
"Ok, I was sympathetic to law enforcement.
Until Eric showed up."
Yeah. No kidding.
This discussion took some turns, didn't it?
It's a lot easier to grow MJ on your own than to make booze and cigarettes yourself.
Well, booze wasn't so hard, witness prohibition, but yeah, when any 14 year old kid is capable of growing something in his bedroom the profit margins are going to be pretty low, particularly if legalized.
eric said...
Not only is the State of Washington lying to him, but so is the federal government.
...
The gold medal prize of all federal agencies is asset forfeiture. If you have millions in assets, we will spend almost as much to seize it. Your home. Your cars. Your bank accounts. Your toys. Anything that has value. Its like putting candy in front of a baby.
It sounds like "eric" works for an organization that lies to people and then steals their stuff.
You think he hates guys like me now and is a peaceful citizen (which I'm not sure what that has to do with anything)
Since apparently peaceful people don't have the right to be left alone, it just means that you'll have less hassle when you steal his stuff.
Right?
On the bright side, sounds like I could park wherever I want.
"The gold medal prize of all federal agencies is asset forfeiture. If you have millions in assets, we will spend almost as much to seize it. Your home. Your cars. Your bank accounts. Your toys. Anything that has value. Its like putting candy in front of a baby."
There's your "regulated commerce" right there, jr.
Achilles there is a black market for cigarettes in Texas too:
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2014/03/19/more-than-half-of-arizona-s-cigarettes-smuggled.html
It's in the top 8 of states with an illegal cigarette problem.
d.d wrote:"That's not the question. The cops applied excessive force to a man pleading for his fucking life and the man died. That's lethal force."
no it's not. It ended up with Grner dying but cops didn't apply deadly force.
Remember that kid who got tased and said "Don't take me bro"? He was pleading to not be tased. Was thwt deadly force? What if he died from the trading like the tiny percentage that do. Cops did not assume they were going to kill him and used a taser so they didn't have to.
Achilles wrote:jr565 said...
"I am for free markets. Since when did that mean we support the black market over the free market? What state does that? That's complete bullcrap."
At some point you have to admit the government oversteps. The Boston Tea Party could be, and is by me, considered foundational. There needs to be consent by more than just a majority.
I am not paying a fine or buying an expensive insurance policy. I will claim the VA covers me which it kinda does. Obamacare is bullshit. I didn't want it. It isn't constitutional. Most of the public doesn't want it. It is garbage. But the IRS is going to send local police out to arrest people that don't pay.
If people do not willingly pay their taxes you have Greece and Spain where tax delinquency has been quoted around 20-30% though it is hard to get a firm number obviously. They are democracies where a majority can, and has, decided they can confiscate the wealth of others. The others just don't comply and we argue about who the police should arrest.
A free society requires almost everyone to buy in and willingly comply or else you get a police state. That means limited government where 90+% of the population accepts the governments role in that area. Conservatives seem to like police states where a majority or in some cases an interested minority can tax something and send the police out to enforce it.
your freedom has never been absolute I this country. You have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but that pursuit doesn't mean you get to violate the laws. And if you do the state can take your freedom. It's always been this way.
We never had anarchy. That's absolute freedom. If you say we should have less laws, the state would still need to enforce those, right? So then it would always be a police state under your terms
Achilles wrote:
I love this discussion. I am right in the middle of it now. I am a partner in an I-502 recreational producer/processor in Washington State which means I can grow and sell marijuana to the licensed retailers. Last year the state did nothing to reign in the medical marijuana industry which is completely unregulated. There is obvious conflict here.
When you talk about the cost of legal business, I don't think you even know what you are talking about. You are spinning out straw men just as fast as the progressives."
Reread what i said. you'll see nothing of what you say contradicts the problems you are facing. My whole point was, once you legalize it, the govt steps in and you have to sell it the way the govt wants. And they get a cut. That would be the same if you were selling pot, cigarettes, soda and anything frankly.
the rules for pot are made worse because the govt doesn't really know how to make rules for it since it's still an illegal product in most states. And not even banks were taking money from sales because the Feds still consider that illegal. Legalizing it now requires a bunch of other laws to change. It was probably a lot easier for pot dealers when they didn't have to pony up any taxes. But you libertarians said we should legalize it so the state could get its taxes. Will legalized pot create a black market for pot. Maybe so, but the state wants its tax dollars. since its legal you now have to play by the rules. If it's too hard, maybe you should find another business to try.
Achilles wrote:
jr565 said...
"1. A state passes a tax where they essentially take 70-80% of the revenue of the legal business, which is what they take for cigs in New York.
2. Then it sends people out with guns and a monopoly on force to stop competition.
3. Profits? The mob had more honor."
1.you don't HAVE to sell cigarettes. If you don't like the arrangement you can not sell cigarettes. CVS stopped selling cigs in their store. You'd still be getting 20% of the revenue so it's not like you're getting nothing. But as a business owner if you didn't like how the state handled cigarette sales simply don't sell them. You're free to do thet. You don't get to make new rules.
2. What competition are you talking about? The black market. Which isn't following the law despite still profiting from business. That is not competition. And if there are rules on how to conduct business Id think the govt would have to enforce its laws, which involves cops and guns and govt. Even if there were fewer laws, if there would laws at all the govt would have the monopoly of force and enforce its laws with police.
So I really don't get why you think illegal sellers of cigarettes should be above such behavior.
Libertarians, what do you think zoning laws?
While there's nothing wrong with selling loosies, if we're making any serious attempt at keeping cigarettes from being sold to minors, then cigarettes need to be sold only from licensed locations where sting operations can be held.
This isn't really about whether certain of the laws the NYPD has been charged with enforcing are in fact good laws. That's another debate. What's at stake here is whether the police can just decide to stop enforcing certain laws solely as a protest against their mayor.
This is similar to Obama deciding that his prosecutorial discretion can be used to keep the executive branch from enforcing certain laws he disagrees with. In both cases, the party charged with enforcement--the NYPD and Obama--are overstepping their bounds and should be stopped.
Now, a cop obviously does have some discretion--he may decide not to arrest a jaywalker or just give a warning to a litterer, as his time and the department's resources are limited and can be directed towards more serious crimes. But political goals are not a legitimate reason for enforcement discretion.
"no it's not. It ended up with Grner dying but cops didn't apply deadly force."
The most depressing use of the passive voice that I have ever read. He didn't "end up dying." The cops killed him. He was begging for air and they killed him. You say it was justifiable homicide. I say it was not. We will have to agree to disagree.
But arguing that the cops did not use "lethal force" is just plain dopey. When a man is begging for air and you don't bother to let up, it's lethal force.
Interesting article yesterday from RCP: How Public Sector Unions Divide the Democrats. The article dwells on the pensions that cities, in particular, promise their unionized employees, and how they are cutting into other services.
But, part of the article pointed out that unions, and, esp. these days, government employee unions, are tightly integrated into the Democratic party. I remember several elections ago, when somewhere around 1/3 of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention were school teachers. That meant that one group of unionized government employees, all by themselves, came close to having enough votes to choose the Dem Presidential nominee. And, even though a lot of the police are more conservative than the teachers, and some even vote Republican, their unions tend to strongly support Democrats.
The Dem party has a lot of constituent parts that have contradictory needs and wants. They need minority votes, union workers to man the phones and drive the buses, Jewish, Wall Street, and Hollywood money to win at major elections, etc. What they don't have much of any more are middle class, and esp. lower middle class, who formed the bulk of the party in previous generations. They are left with the lower class, who want more free goodies from the govt., government union employees who want more pay and (esp.) benefits from the govt., and the rich and powerful, who are willing to buy special favors from the govt. by funding (primarily these days) Dem candidates.
This kinda works in a lot of places. But, in big cities, and esp. NYC, this coalition is falling apart. There is no longer a big enough middle class left to support both the government unionized employees and the lower class welfare dependents. They are increasingly fighting over the remaining money. And, their attempts to increase revenues through taxes, fines, etc., ultimately works to drive more of the middle class to move away, making it that much harder to fund these competing Dem party needs.
"Libertarians, what do you think zoning laws?"
Zoning laws can be necessary and desirable, in moderation--otherwise your house could have a tarantula farm (which I sincerely hope is only something I just made up) or a rendering plant next door. But like any legal regime, the zoning laws can be overly oppressive and can be used by rent seekers trying to prevent competition (look at how a lot of places use their liquor license laws--not as a way of preventing booze-filled mayhem but protecting existing holders of the licenses).
"This isn't really about whether certain of the laws the NYPD has been charged with enforcing are in fact good laws. That's another debate. What's at stake here is whether the police can just decide to stop enforcing certain laws solely as a protest against their mayor."
This is part of it. But there is also something to be said by the over-reaction about it. Read the remarks again. The police aren't going to make any arrests "unless necessary." Which raises some interesting questions like: "Wait. What? The previous policy was to make a ton of unnecessary arrests?"
And, "Why are people wetting their pants that cops aren't going to be making unnecessary arrests?"
buster said...
"Libertarians, what do you think zoning laws?"
If they are fairly applied and limited in scope so that 75+% of the population supports them fine. If they are arbitrary, excessive, manipulated by influence pedaling and overly burdensome on freedom then no they are not cool.
This is another stupid straw man argument thinking libertarians want anarchy. We don't. There are uses of government power that you will get super majorities to support. What we are against is the tyranny of the majority and influence pedaling.
If you limit the government to things that almost everyone wants it does a decent job. Once you start involving it to define marriage for example where we don't all agree it does a bad job no matter who wins, and we get the added benefit of now hating people we disagree with politically.
Brando said...
"This isn't really about whether certain of the laws the NYPD has been charged with enforcing are in fact good laws. That's another debate. What's at stake here is whether the police can just decide to stop enforcing certain laws solely as a protest against their mayor."
You will get no arguments about banning public unions here.
But this is about selling loosies. We as a society need to accept responsibility for deaths like Garner's. His death in the best case was caused by his arrest. He had kids he was bad at supporting but he was trying.
I will not fit in at Lowe's selling home improvement supplies. I have sympathy for Eric Garner though a lot of our circumstances are different. He probably had terrible role models in his life and saw no way to put his energy anywhere else. Even though he was fat and probably lazy I can understand a hustler. They work hard and just because he wasn't giving his tithe to the State of New York that doesn't mean he should be subject to imprisonment and situations like where he died. The citizens of New York obviously would prefer cheaper Cig's. Sin taxes in general are a conservatives favorite way to look down upon those less than them though.
"Libertarians, what do you think zoning laws?"
In theory, reasonable zoning restrictions don't bother me too much. In practice, I am very skeptical that these ordinance are abused for rent seeking.
As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, many zoning issues could also be handled through civil trespass and nuisance law. This would (for example) prevent a rendering plant from opening up next door. You have never needed an ordinance to stop that. The civil process (if it weren't so expensive) could function as a more "open source" zoning regime.
However, suing for nuisance is pretty inefficient, and expensive if you need to do it. So I understand why some zoning is desirable.
Also, I don't like the phrase "non-lethal force." That makes it sound like force that will never be lethal.
I think the current in vogue term is less than lethal intended force to describe things like bean bag guns and tasers.
"And, "Why are people wetting their pants that cops aren't going to be making unnecessary arrests?""
-- Arresting a guy swearing and throwing rocks and things at people is necessary, you have to arrest him because he's a clear danger.
Some guy standing on a street corner trying to sell you something that may be stolen and that he certainly has no legal right to be selling in that fashion is not necessary. There's no immediate physical danger -- at least, I think that's the distinction.
I think the problem is that the police union are, in many ways, acting like a protection racket.
As somebody else said, they seek the same respect that the military has without the same required obligations.
Military personnel do not support Obama. They don't heckle him or turn their back to him.
de Blasio should fire most of them --- but he will not. Because he is a weak man and NYC got the mayor they wanted and deserve.
"This is another stupid straw man argument thinking libertarians want anarchy. We don't."
Well, that's what you have to argue if you claim to be for "free markets" while actually supporting a vast regulatory state.
In post-truth America both the police and the mayor are right. The mayor however recently had a ten-foot high fence erected around Gracie Mansion to keep the rabble from peeking in. Without a building permit or I would imagine the okay of several other boards and associations, the Historical Buildings Commission comes to mind but in post-truth America newspapers don't care.
In post-truth America no one is asking, "What does the city do with all this money collected in fines, license and permit fees, and the like?"
In post-truth America the people are targets, get used to it.
What's at stake here is whether the police can just decide to stop enforcing certain laws solely as a protest against their mayor.
---
But political goals are not a legitimate reason for enforcement discretion.
I would argue that the mayor was the first to urge enforcement discretion for political reasons if he was really behind their being told not to get protestors off bridges, etc...
Achilles said [re zoning laws]:
"If you limit the government to things that almost everyone wants it does a decent job."
Back in '60s, almost everyone was against legalizing marijuana. The libertarians argued that the government has no business regulating harmless personal conduct. I'm not a libertarian, but it seems to me that the '60s libertarians would not agree with you.
BTW, the last I heard, Houston, Texas had no zoning ordinance. But things are working out just fine.
"I would argue that the mayor was the first to urge enforcement discretion for political reasons if he was really behind their being told not to get protestors off bridges, etc..."
No argument there. The mayor shouldn't be relaxing the laws for his favored political groups any more than the police should decide not to enforce the laws.
This debate reminds me of this classic, from the heyday of OWS ("Woodstock for Economic Ignoramuses*"):
http://www.political-humor.org/wants-more-government-more-government.shtml
*which I'm guessing Cook and garagemahal attended.
"If people do not willingly pay their taxes you have Greece and Spain where tax delinquency has been quoted around 20-30% though it is hard to get a firm number obviously. "
If people don't pay their taxes, that's when police step in and enforce the laws.
"A free society requires almost everyone to buy in and willingly comply or else you get a police state. "
So then the police are there because you are not complying. See how that works.
I am not paying a fine or buying an expensive insurance policy. I will claim the VA covers me which it kinda does. Obamacare is bullshit. I didn't want it. It isn't constitutional. Most of the public doesn't want it. It is garbage. But the IRS is going to send local police out to arrest people that don't pay"
Wesley snipes is in jail because he thought there was something in the law that said he didn't need to pay his taxes. Didn't the Supremes in fact say it WAS constitutional, as a tax? Does't mean I like it. But I don't see how it makes the law optional either. THat's why you don't let an Obama get elected. Any roll backs of the law though have to be done through the legislature. If you don't follow the law, the govt has you on breaking the law.
"BTW, the last I heard, Houston, Texas had no zoning ordinance. But things are working out just fine."
The issue is not that other states have different rules, the issue is that you follow the rules for your state.
Matthew Sablan wrote:
Some guy standing on a street corner trying to sell you something that may be stolen and that he certainly has no legal right to be selling in that fashion is not necessary. There's no immediate physical danger -- at least, I think that's the distinction.
THey may not be making this kind of arrest now, but there is no reason why they should not be making this type of arrest normally.
cubanbob wrote:
read your tale of woe and while I can sympathize with you I do have to ask, what the hell where you thinking when you decided to get into the MJ business? You should have seen that coming ten miles away.
No wonder Achilles is so bent out of shape over Garner. He's in the same boat selling an illegal product.
""The gold medal prize of all federal agencies is asset forfeiture. If you have millions in assets, we will spend almost as much to seize it. Your home. Your cars. Your bank accounts. Your toys. Anything that has value. Its like putting candy in front of a baby."
Who's assets are being seized? Drug dealers, people who don't pay their taxes. And why? Because they're dealing drugs and/or not paying their taxes. And why shouldn't their assets be seized? they owe money.
D.D Driver wrote:
The most depressing use of the passive voice that I have ever read. He didn't "end up dying." The cops killed him. He was begging for air and they killed him. You say it was justifiable homicide. I say it was not. We will have to agree to disagree.
But arguing that the cops did not use "lethal force" is just plain dopey. When a man is begging for air and you don't bother to let up, it's lethal force.
I already explained what DEADLY force requires. A cop shooting a gun at someone is a cop using deadly force. A cop grabbing someone to the ground and then sitting on him until they get the person in handcuffs is not. Because the cop doesn't have a reasonable expectation that him doing the latter will lead to the persons death. It's not lethal force. If, rather than trying to drag him to the ground and arrest him a cop simply shot him, THAT would be using deadly force.
It still might be justified if Garner was, say, choking a cop, or was beating a cop senseless and he was in fear for his life. But these cops didn't do that. It was a routine arrest of someone who resisted.
He panicked, started hyperventilating and then had a heart attack. There was not a single punch or use of a billy club that would suggest excessive force.
You could say they should have turned him on his side QUICKER, as there is a potential for people who are on the ground to asphyxiate. But that's not MURDER.
Quicker is relative. Someone who's out of shape and hyperventilating may asphyxiate quicker. So determining how quick to put someone on their side or sit up will be different for each person. Most wont asphyxiate. A few will.It still would require them not lifting him up until they got the handcuffs on. If he's panicking it takes them longer to do so. SO again, he's the one who put himself in that position.
Same with people getting tackled in a football game. Most wont end up with spinal injuries, but it happens from time to time.
Can you imagine if cops had to follow your rules? As soon as a cop had them on the ground they could say "I can't breath" and the cop would have to stop trying to arrest them. whereupon they could then stab the officer or punch the officer. And when the officer got him on the ground again they could say "I can't breathe!" Rinse and repeat however many times you need to show that the whole idea is farcical.
jr565 said [re zoning laws and Houston]:
"The issue is not that other states have different rules, the issue is that you follow the rules for your state."
I mentioned Houston because Achilles said I am erecting a straw man by bringing up zoning laws. There's nothing irrational about opposing the practice of zoning, but Achilles doesn't oppose it. So he accepts unnecessary restrictions on property rights.
My general point is that the libertarian position -- that governments should only protect property rights, enforce contracts, and provide the public goods that libertarians approve (e.g., national defense but not clean air) -- has implications that most libertarians themselves don't accept. Libertarianism is based on a sound intuition -- that laws should not be unnecessarily oppressive -- but is hopelessly superficial and naive.
This debate reminds me of this classic from the heyday of OWS (aka "Woodstock for Economic Ignoramuses"):
http://www.political-humor.org/wants-more-government-more-government.shtml
Original Mike wrote:
"Well, that's what you have to argue if you claim to be for "free markets" while actually supporting a vast regulatory state."
I support a regulatory state. Don't know how vast it is. But the libertarians are so anti regulatory states they have problems with a business needing a license which is required to open businesses in all 50 states, as far as I know. So don't think my accounting of libertariasm is at all inaccurate.
"Libertarianism is based on a sound intuition -- that laws should not be unnecessarily oppressive -- but is hopelessly superficial and naive."
Because if you were a sophisticated, deep thinker, you would see where some people have the right to impose their will on you. (How you get to be one of that elite--the forcers rather than the forced--remains, of course, a mystery.)
What libertarians really have a problem with is not illegal drugs being made legal, but legal businesses being regulated at all.
William Chadwick wrote:
Because if you were a sophisticated, deep thinker, you would see where some people have the right to impose their will on you. (How you get to be one of that elite--the forcers rather than the forced--remains, of course, a mystery.)
politicians are those elite. and they get elected and become senators.
We are not talking war on drugs now, but legal products. Society allows you to sell cigarettes. What's wrong with society saying if you want to sell cigarettes you need to follow these rules? And if you don't like the rules you don't sell the cigarettes, and if you abide them you do? It seems like libertarians on this board feel like that is an unreasonable proposition. Which is bat shit insane.
William Chadwack said:
"Because if you were a sophisticated, deep thinker ... [and] one of the elite...."
I'm not a deep thinker, and definitely not one of the elite. Drop the ad hominem and answer the argument.
Who's assets are being seized? Drug dealers, people who don't pay their taxes.
Also, small business people who deposit amounts less than 3k at the bank...and some more I can't think of right now. This asset seizure thing needs some serious rethinking.
"I already explained what DEADLY force requires. A cop shooting a gun at someone is a cop using deadly force. A cop grabbing someone to the ground and then sitting on him until they get the person in handcuffs is not. Because the cop doesn't have a reasonable expectation that him doing the latter will lead to the persons death."
Unless the cops were deaf or complete morons, yes they do. He told them he could not breathe. At that point, you don't need to be a doctor to know that life is in danger. A cop should be able to understand that. Maybe this was the "Very Special" Crimes Unit (as in the cops were "very special" not the crimes) and the cops honestly did not understand the importance of oxygen. Maybe. But I doubt it. They knew he was in distress, they just recklessly ignored it.
The analogy would be if a cop draws his taser and I say "don't do it I have a pacermaker" and they do it anyway, killing me. You can't fall back on the argument that "most people don't die from a taser," because the cops has solid information that I might. That's reckless homicide or "depraved heart" murder.
And boo hoo if its harder for cops to arrest individuals if they actually have to use their brains, demonstrate common sense, and show a smidgen of common decency and respect for human life. If you can't fix my pipes without flooding my house, don't be a plumber. If you can't apprehend an unarmed man without killing him, you should not be a cop.
Are you really arguing that we should tolerate killing to enforce petty crimes because otherwise the cops' job would be a little bit harder? Who with a conscious is willing to accept that trade-off?
What would Roberrt Nozick do?
" But the libertarians are so anti regulatory states they have problems with a business needing a license"
I have NO problem with a business needing license. I have a problem with a barber shop having to kowtow to thirteen agencies (as someone testified to in a recent thread). Do you really believe government regulation hasn't gone off the deep end?
One last point and then I am done for the year. Since our Founding Fathers grabbed arms to fight back against the abusive use of force by the Crown, we have always taken the trade off in favor of life, liberty, and property over "making things easier for cops."
A cop's job would be a lot easier if we repealed the Fourth Amendment, if we eliminate the presumption of innocence, the trial by jury, and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
But we don't do it because we are willing to trade off some guilty people walking free and some extra crime, because it is worth it. It is worth it for innocent people to not be imprisoned or harassed by the government upon the whims of its low-level employees. It is worth it to not get killed for being accused of committing a petty crime. It is worth it.
I reject the argument that we need to let cops have a disregard for human life because otherwise their jobs are just "too hard." Maybe we just need better cops that are up to the task.
Happy New Years to all!
Stay safe.
Original Mike wrote;
have NO problem with a business needing license. I have a problem with a barber shop having to kowtow to thirteen agencies (as someone testified to in a recent thread). Do you really believe government regulation hasn't gone off the deep end?
Sure, there are too many regulations. But lets talk about specific regulations.
If you are ok with businesses needing licenses, then what do you propose the law should do with businesses that don't have the license? Doesn't the pretty much require that the law has to enforce that law and punish those who don't have the license? Otherwise it's not fair to those that got the license and you might as well not have licenses.
So now lets talk about Garner. He was selling cigarettes without a license. He was selling on the street without a license. Why should he not be targeted then if he's violating the law?
If cops should now not go after him, even though he doesn't have the licensese required, then what's the point of making a business get a license?
What, exactly, did BdB do wrong? -Garage
He sided with people who want to see cops murdered. He ordered the police not to arrest those people when they violated the law.
When they got their wish, BdB did not lash out at everyone who called for dead cops. He didn't reverse policy, and announce that every "protestor" who violated the law would be arrested, and prosecuted to the maximum extent the law allows.
Should the cops be above the law? Of course not.
Should the cops care about putting their lives on the line, enforcing minor laws, when at other times the mayor has ordered them to ignore people violating minor laws?
I can't see why.
When BdB starts ordering the cops to arrest the criminals in BdB's base, then he will have the moral standing to complain about what the cops are doing. Until then, neither he nor any of his supporters has any grounds for complaint.
D.D Driver wrote:
A cop's job would be a lot easier if we repealed the Fourth Amendment, if we eliminate the presumption of innocence, the trial by jury, and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
But we don't do it because we are willing to trade off some guilty people walking free and some extra crime, because it is worth it. It is worth it for innocent people to not be imprisoned or harassed by the government upon the whims of its low-level employees. It is worth it to not get killed for being accused of committing a petty crime. It is worth it.
I reject the argument that we need to let cops have a disregard for human life because otherwise their jobs are just "too hard." Maybe we just need better cops that are up to the task.
And I reject the argument that the cops in Garner's case did have a disregard for human life, and that they disregarded his life because they thought their job was too hard.
If you use a taser on someone that is not having a disregard for human life since you are using non lethal force (in 99% of cases). If they die it doesn't mean that suddenly you had a disregard for life because there was a bad outcome.
Lets hold cops who kill suspects intentionally and despite not being in any danger to that standard.
gregq wrote:
Should the cops care about putting their lives on the line, enforcing minor laws, when at other times the mayor has ordered them to ignore people violating minor laws?
Bill Deblasio actually told the cops to step up the crack downs on illegal cigarettes. Where I fault him on is not that, but that when someone died he made the argument that his kid had to fear cops because they profile blacks. There was no racial profiling in Garner's case. (or Martin's case or Brown's case). So then why defame cops over an issue that has nothing to do with the case?
jr565:
I have no problem with government licensing businesses.
I have no problem with the police enforcing the laws with Garner.
I've been nudged to comment on this topic, and to address you specifically, because after reading your (probably hundreds, at this point) posts on this topic, I find your claim to be a free marketer laughable and your strawman dismal of libertarians (What libertarians really have a problem with is not illegal drugs being made legal, but legal businesses being regulated at all.") offensive.
Read Achilles arguments. They are pretty much anti businesses needing licenses. Do you want me to find the quotes?
"The act is only "illegal" because of the BS law. It should not be illegal for two consenting adults to sell each other cigarettes without first asking the Crown for permission.
The law is in place to "protect" businesses from competition.
And
"It is such an absurd law which needs to be changed. And not just loose cigarettes either. A man should be allowed to stand outside a liquor store and sell cans of beer as well. Or peddle sandwiches outside a restaurant or popsicles outside an ice cream shop.
It's a free fucking country and nobody has the right to stop anyone from selling anything anywhere."
I don't give a damn about Achilles, though after watching your propensity for straw men I find the qualifier "pretty much" to be telling.
If you can sell anything to anyone anywhere you don't need a license.
That is an argument about legal business regulation not regulation of illegal drugs.
WHy am I engaging in straw men if I'm responding to Achilles argument directly.
Well, Achiles is clearly in error. It is not a free fucking country.
Original Mike wrote:
I have NO problem with a business needing license. I have a problem with a barber shop having to kowtow to thirteen agencies (as someone testified to in a recent thread). Do you really believe government regulation hasn't gone off the deep end?
Sure there are two many regulations. Who would argue otherwise. But cops just enforce the law. they don't write them. And if they ignored the enforcement of the law because it was a non violent offense or they felt it was a bullshit law, they undermine the law for law abiding people.
"WHy am I engaging in straw men if I'm responding to Achilles argument directly."
Insert the word "Achilles" for libertarians and we're cool. Oh, and stop saying you are for free markets.
Original Mike wrote:
Well, Achiles is clearly in error. It is not a free fucking country.
Sure it is. But it's not an absolutely free country. You are free so long as you don't violate the law. You can try to break it anyway, but if you are caught its not a defense if you think the law is stupid.
HOw about I'm for a mixed economy. I'm for the economy we have.
buster said...My general point is that the libertarian position -- that governments should only protect property rights, enforce contracts, and provide the public goods that libertarians approve (e.g., national defense but not clean air) -- has implications that most libertarians themselves don't accept. Libertarianism is based on a sound intuition -- that laws should not be unnecessarily oppressive -- but is hopelessly superficial and naive.
Libertarians don't value clean air, or don't think clean air is a public good? I think it's more accurate to say that libertarians reject the idea that the only way to protect rights or provide/obtain x y or z benefit is through government force and regulation. A libertarian would likely say clean air is a good thing and should be protected, but that if it's possible to protect clean air (rights) without resorting to using government-backed violence or coercion then that alternative is preferable. A libertarian would likely argue that the less a particular law or regulation is related to providing for a true public good (or protecting an individual right, etc) the less moral that law or regulation is.
Libertarians reject the argument jr565 makes (implicitly and almost explicitly) that any gov. regulation is valid or that any law must morally be valid if it's a law. jr565 looks at the unfairness of some people having to bear the burden of regulation and others avoiding that burden and concludes that the only injustice is the "illegal" business getting away with avoiding the regulatory burden. Libertarians would argue that the unfairness jr565 points out does exist, but that the greater injustice is the burden unnecessary regulations place on everyone, especially the "legal" busineses (and the accompanying restrictions on voluntary free market activity, etc). That's what I mean when I say they're talking past each other.
Regarding the assertion that libertarianism is superficial or naive I'll agree that if all one has is the "sound intuition -- that laws should not be unnecessarily oppressive" then of course one's framework is superficial, but most (adult) Libertarians I've spoken with have thought pretty deeply about their system of beliefs and human nature generally--I wouldn't call those people naive.
" I'm for the economy we have."
So far from free, you can't see it from here.
I'm for private property rights, self interst, freedom of choice (economically), market prices being set by the market and for competition. But competition that all play by the same rules.
jr565 said...You are free so long as you don't violate the law.
That's either a tautology or a love letter to North Korean/Soviet/insert "legal" dictatorship of choice here repression; maybe both.
Hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
"Libertarians reject the argument jr565 makes (implicitly and almost explicitly) that any gov. regulation is valid or that any law must morally be valid if it's a law.
Whether it's moral or not is my opinion. If I don't like it I have to appeal to my congressmen to change it.
" jr565 looks at the unfairness of some people having to bear the burden of regulation and others avoiding that burden and concludes that the only injustice is the "illegal" business getting away with avoiding the regulatory burden. Libertarians would argue that the unfairness jr565 points out does exist, but that the greater injustice is the burden unnecessary regulations place on everyone, especially the "legal" busineses (and the accompanying restrictions on voluntary free market activity, etc). That's what I mean when I say they're talking past each other."
Cops are enforcing the law under the economic system we have,not the economic system libertarians want. In our economic system, cops SHOULD be going after the people selling loosies. If we've moved to a completely free economy where you can sell whatever you want, wherever you want and can pocket the taxes that would go to the state, then of course it would be tyrannical for cops to go after people selling loosies. But we're not there.Garner can't make it so simply because he wants to sell loosies.
Hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
That's either a tautology or a love letter to North Korean/Soviet/insert "legal" dictatorship of choice here repression; maybe both.
How is it a tautology. Are you free to murder? Your absolute freedom to do whatever you want is limited by the rules in place against murder.
"You are free so long as you don't violate the law."
Putin couldn't agree more.
"I'm for private property rights, self interst, freedom of choice (economically), market prices being set by the market and for competition. But competition that all play by the same rules."
You're delusional. You're a statist.
"Cops are enforcing the law under the economic system we have,not the economic system libertarians want."
I agree. That's why it's called a straw man argument.
Original Mike so if there is a law against something are you free to do it?
What I'm saying is no one has absolute freedom. Absolute freedom is anarchy. Our right to pursuit of happiness will still hit the wall of what is legally permissible in society. and society has the right to take away our freedom and even our life if we violate said law. I think what you really want is to live on your own island.
Original Mike wrote:
So far from free, you can't see it from here.
Then that's your problem. You're a liberal at heart. You pine for an America that doesn't exsist and probably never has existed. And never will exist.
original Mike, which state operates under rules you think economies should operate under. Does Texas?
My dear jr565, the conflict under discussion is precisely where "freedom of choice (economically)" and "competition" clash!
If you wish to buy a glass of lemonade from a fellow and that fellow would like to be in the business of selling lemonade but the transaction is prevented becasue that fellow cannot obtain the necessary paperwork from the state (or it is not economically viable for him to do so due to the high cost of said paperwork) both of your "economic freedoms of choice" are violated, yet "competition" as you've defined it is upheld since the problem is a rule mandated by the state. Despite the straw man assertions to the contrary I haven't read many posts in this thread by people arguing that all regulation is always bad/immoral, so the argument is therefore over degree and purpose. You seem to have the position that as long as something is the law then it's valid (in the moral sense) but I find that difficult to accept--at the very least that's not a very American idea.
Back to my example, if a city has a mandate that lemonade sellers must register, give a list of their employees, submit to random inspections, and pay $50/year to the city (to maintain the records, etc) for a license in order to legally sell lemonade that's a restriction on freedom but a relatively minor one and I'd bet most people (and even many Libertarians) wouldn't have a problem with it. If the same city mandated $5,000/year (or $15k, or $150k!) to do the same thing, though, and provided no additional public benefit for that additional cost, I'd bet most people (and probably all Libertarians) would have a problem with that charge, and might call it an immoral restriction of economic freedom of choice. Is your position that in both cases "it's the law" and those two situations are morally equivalent?
Original Mike wrote:
I've been nudged to comment on this topic, and to address you specifically, because after reading your (probably hundreds, at this point) posts on this topic, I find your claim to be a free marketer laughable and your strawman dismal of libertarians (What libertarians really have a problem with is not illegal drugs being made legal, but legal businesses being regulated at all.") offensive."
Didn't you just accuse me of strawmaning libertarians? So wait, you are for legal businesses being regulated?
Hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
You seem to have the position that as long as something is the law then it's valid (in the moral sense) but I find that difficult to accept--at the very least that's not a very American idea.
Valid - Not in the moral sense, but the legal sense.
jr565 I'm not arguing that Garner shouldn't have been subject to arrest given the particular circumstances of that situation. I am asserting that your are incorrectly applying the particulars of that case more generally. You also seem to be conflating business licensing/regulations with tax collection.
jr565 said...Valid - Not in the moral sense, but the legal sense.
Ok, so that is a tautology then. Your'e saying "the law is the law."
Hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
"If you wish to buy a glass of lemonade from a fellow and that fellow would like to be in the business of selling lemonade but the transaction is prevented becasue that fellow cannot obtain the necessary paperwork from the state (or it is not economically viable for him to do so due to the high cost of said paperwork) both of your "economic freedoms of choice" are violated, yet "competition" as you've defined it is upheld since the problem is a rule mandated by the state. "
Businesses are governed by laws. A business license indicates that the business owner recognizes all local, state, and federal regulation for the business and is willing to comply with the laws.
A business can't operate outside of the confines of said laws.
I'll point out, as well, that if one's concern is with the law being applied equitably and/or police force being used to enforce existing laws for everyone then the problem of unlicensed vendor sales is likely pretty damn far down the list of things to address. How you must rage to hear President Obama say "no one actually believes 20 million people (illegal immigrants) should be deported!"
"Valid - Not in the moral sense, but the legal sense."
Duh.
Hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
Ok, so that is a tautology then. Your'e saying "the law is the law."
If the law is the law, what freedom do you think you are entitled to? Are you above the law?
What I personally think about the law is irrelevant, for purposes of discussion.
@ Hoodlum Doodlum:
If clean air is a public good, it can't be provided by private transactions. That's what "public good" means.
jr565 said... A business license indicates that the business owner recognizes all local, state, and federal regulation for the business and is willing to comply with the laws.
A business can't operate outside of the confines of said laws.
I'm afraid you haven't gone beyond the tautology yet, jr. What if a business complies with all other laws and regulations of their locality, state, and nation but does not obtain a business licnese? How does having a business license (in itself) guarantee compliance with other laws? I'm inquiring as to the purpose and function of the rule (to evaluate its morality by comparing its benefit to its cost and purpose) and you're reiterating that it's a rule.
Hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
"You seem to have the position that as long as something is the law then it's valid (in the moral sense)but I find that very difficult to accept"
What do you mean by "valid". If it's the law then of course it's valid. Why would you find that difficult to accept? If you morally found the law invalid what do you think you'd be entitled to vis a vis that law?
I guess saying the law is the law maybe a tautology, but I don't really get what you think is true, if not the tautology? Is the law not the law? Is how you feel about the law relevant to how you are to behave under it?
Hoodlum doodlum wrote:
I'm afraid you haven't gone beyond the tautology yet, jr. What if a business complies with all other laws and regulations of their locality, state, and nation but does not obtain a business licnese?
Then it shouldn't be in business. Because it needs the license to be in business.
Hoodlum doodlum wrote:
What if a business complies with all other laws and regulations of their locality, state, and nation but does not obtain a business licnese?
And what if another business got a license but then disobeyed other specific laws and regulations? What do we do with THAT business?
Is there any time the state should step in and enforce laws against businesses that don't meet requirements?
So, a business doesn't need a license to operate business. Then why does a different business need that license. A business doesn't follow a specific law (like say your lemonade stand just set up shop on a street corner without getting a license to sell on that corner). What about those that did? Are they now able to similarly not get licenses and set up on whatever corner they want?
If a business wants to sell cigarettes they need a license. And they need to pay the govt sales tax. But if you sell loosies, you don't need to give the govt a sales tax. So then why does the licensed cigarette seller need to pay the sales tax? Why can't he too sell loosies?
Hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
I'll point out, as well, that if one's concern is with the law being applied equitably and/or police force being used to enforce existing laws for everyone then the problem of unlicensed vendor sales is likely pretty damn far down the list of things to address. How you must rage to hear President Obama say "no one actually believes 20 million people (illegal immigrants) should be deported!"
Im not a big fan of sanctuary cities either.Or open borders.
I think jr is a robot. He's not passing the Turing test.
buster said...If clean air is a public good, it can't be provided by private transactions. That's what "public good" means.
Well a "public good" means something that's nonrivalous and nonexclusive--that can be used by many people (whithout being "used up) and that you can't prevent others from using. The point I wanted to make was that even in the realm of true public goods it's not necessarily true that only central government legal regulations (as opposed to more local and/or voluntary organizations) can provide them.
On a technical note: Clean air is often given as an example of a public good. One problem with that example is that air quality for a given place is local and thus rivalrous to an extent, or to put it another way one's enjoyment of the air of a particular place necessitates being there, and most places can only have a fixed number of people at any one time...If a city has clean air but restricts entry or new construction in the city so that more people can't move in can you still consider that city's air quality nonexclusive?
The old example you used to see most often of public goods were things like lighthouses and roads. The trouble with arguing that only the government body can provide roads and lighthouses is that many roads and lighthouses existed prior to organized "governments" as we'd recognize them. Many were made and maintained by private organizations and voluntary groups. Again, I'm not arguing that public goods don't exist, nor that government regulation isn't the only way some public goods could reasonably be provided (nor that clean air isn't a public good); I'm arguing that it's not true that the only way to provide or protect all public goods is through central gov. regulation (and as a side note I'd argue that we don't think deeply enough about what should really be considered public goods).
@HoodlumDoodlum:
You're talking about free goods, not public ones. Air is a free good. Clean air is a public one.
Hoodlum, When garner sold his loosies he didn't pay taxes for one. Secondly he may not have carded those who he sold to. Third he didn't get permission before sellin on the street that said he had a right to be there. Which one of those laws do you think should be optional?
jr565 said...Then it shouldn't be in business. Because it needs the license to be in business.
You've rephrased the tautology; you defined business as "that which needs a license" and have then said a business needs a license to be a business and a business without a license isn't a business.
And they need to pay the govt sales tax. But if you sell loosies, you don't need to give the govt a sales tax
Sure you do! Or at least, if you don't that's a separate and distinct legal violation. Think Al Capone.
A business without a license isn't a legal business.
Not that it matters, but I am curious. Do you think a child operating a lemonade stand needs a license?
jr565 said...
Hoodlum, When garner sold his loosies he didn't pay taxes for one. Secondly he may not have carded those who he sold to. Third he didn't get permission before sellin on the street that said he had a right to be there. Which one of those laws do you think should be optional?
jr565 as I've mentioned I'm not arguing the specifics of the Garner case, but I will point out that none of the 3 legal violations you point out are "failure to have a business license." Let's suppose he did collect taxes for the cigarettes he sold (and would have remitted those collected taxes to the gov quarterly), he did card those he sold to, and he was selling from property he owned. How would his having or not having a license from the city to sell have made a difference, other than "the law says you must have a license"? What benefit to society generally does the requirement that one obtain a license provide? I'm not asking about other laws, I'm asking only about a license requirement.
If they are selling it on their lawn then no, but if they are selling on the street and are treating their cart like a business then yes. If a cart wants to sell food on the street they need to get a license, they need to make sure it's legal to sell well they are. They have to be checked out to make sure they're not selling poison.they have to make sure they are not selling on other businesses property. Etc.
Every other cart in the city has to go through said requirements. So why should they be exempt?
A license says you are a legitimate business and that you agree to abide by the laws that govern your specific business.
You are opening a business in a governments jurisdiction They have rules about what can be sold
There and how it can be sold. so then if you want to open busines there you have to play by the rules. The license shows that you are a legitimate business
buster said...You're talking about free goods, not public ones. Air is a free good. Clean air is a public one
Since I'm in the "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch" boat I'm not sure how you're making a different distinction--usually when I see discussions of "free goods" they're around things like intellectual innovation/ideas. I'm not really trying to argue over whether clean air is public good or not (as I said it's one of the classic examples in most textbooks).
Also original mike,
In regards to the Lemonade stand maybe not:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/08/5-legal-issues-with-your-kids-lemonade-stand.html
jr565 said...
You are opening a business in a governments jurisdiction
And there we have an illustration of your disagreement with libertarians (and I would think/hope many non-libertarian Americans)--in your phrasing the "space" belongs first to the government and as a result of course anyone wishing to do anything within that space must have the government's permission. You seemingly follow that line of thought by adding that any demand the goverment makes in order for you to obtain its permission is valid since they own the space.
The libertarian view is that the space belongs to private individuals first, and that as such voluntary market transactions among private individuals do not require government permission absent some contrary public need (safety, etc). What I kept asking you for was to define what need having a lincense (in itself) fulfills, and your non-answer was that having a license is required.
Also just for technical reasons we should make sure we distinguish between selling something and being in the busines of selling something; if I sell a few firearms per year to friends I don't need to have an FFL but the gun store down the street certainly does. Once again we're dealing with a line-drawing problem and I don't accept the argument that anywhere that line is drawn must be equally valid morally.
I'm honestly don't know enough about the facts to speculate on whether Garner was in the business of selling loosies or not (it sounds like he was) but I'm not relying on the particulars of that case here.
For example are the people selling the lemonade getting a permit:
"Permits. To operate a lawful lemonade stand, your mini-entrepreneur may need to apply for vendor and food permits. You may need a permit even when the stand is operating from the "company headquarters" (i.e., your house...). Three girls in Georgia learned this lesson the hard way when they were busted by their local police chief for running an illegal lemonade stand, according to NBC News. They were saving up for water park tickets."
now before everyone jumps up and down about the absurdity of it, there are also laws that govern selling home baked goods.
To sell home baked goods you again need a business license.
You need to comply with your local health codes and pass an inspection. And you need insurance for any issues of liability.
Someone selling lemonade is selling a food product. What if I get sick from their lemonade?
I don't think its unreasonable to ask that people who sell food have insurance, get inspections to show they are safe and have a license to show they are professional.
So, if all of those are relevant, then if you want to sell lemonade you should do all of them. And the cops can close you down if you don't. Just like they'd close down the restaurant which had unsanitary conditions.
You want to do business in a jurisdiction you follow its rules and you pass any and all requirements. Or you find another place to set up shop.
Should we not have laws on selling home baked goods?
"Should we not have laws on selling home baked goods?"
At this point, I think you're pulling our leg.
Believe it or not jr565 I used the example of selling lemonade exactly because it's become a boundary question and there have been instances of legal crackdowns recently.
A libertarian answer to the question "should we not have laws on selling home baked goods" is "why is it morally valid to restrict my right to voluntarily transact with willing sellers--what gives you the right to restrict our free trade?" If I am aware that a seller baked goods in their home and am willing to take whatever greater risks exist (over non-home baked goods) in that transaction, by what right do you say we're not allowed to transact?
Your framework assumes that the law is morally valid and doesn't move beyond the tautology "the law is the law."
And by the way, it's getting to be worse than To sell home baked goods you again need a business license. In some jurisdictions you now need a license to give away home baked goods, as several churches have discovered.
But you were the one asking about whether I would require someone to sell lemonade without a permit. I'm showing you that it's not as simple as that.
I don't know at this point if you think I'm pulling your leg because you think we should have laws on selling home baked goods and the very idea that someone thinks we shouldn't is ludicrous, or shouldn't. And the very idea that someone thinks we should is ludicrous.
Your conception of the preeminence of the State (as opposed to the individual) is not an uncommon one, jr565, but I submit it is not a traditional American understanding of the proper balance of power or of freedom generally.
hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
A libertarian answer to the question "should we not have laws on selling home baked goods" is "why is it morally valid to restrict my right to voluntarily transact with willing sellers--what gives you the right to restrict our free trade"
Well are we now talking about selling strictly at your house or on the street. If strictly in your house, its a harder question. If you are selling goods to your family, they are not going to sue you if you give them ecoli. But if you are selling food to a stranger and you give them ecoli, they are probably going to sue you. Then it runs into the "we require people who sell food for profit to do x,y,z" you sold food and didn't meet those steps and now someone got hurt. If we were going after a restaurant and they were selling food in unsanitary conditions we'd shut them down. But because you didn't abide by any rules at all but similarly got people sick we'll give you a pass?
"Society allows you to sell cigarettes. What's wrong with society saying if you want to sell cigarettes you need to follow these rules? And if you don't like the rules you don't sell the cigarettes, and if you abide them you do? It seems like libertarians on this board feel like that is an unreasonable proposition. Which is bat shit insane."
jr565, would you have made a similar argument in, say, 1960 Mississippi? "Society allows you Negroes to live in subordination to the white race. If you want to eat in a restaurant, you can eat in a Negro one or perhaps the Negro part of a segregated restaurant. If you don't like those rules, don't eat out. If you do eat out, abide by them. Anyone who thinks that is unreasonable is bat shit insane."
""why is it morally valid to restrict my right to voluntarily transact with willing sellers--what gives you the right to restrict our free trade?"
Where are you selling? And what are you selling? You are bound in either case by the laws of the area.
If you said Why should the state restrict my right to sell machine guns to my neighbor, the answer would be, because in this jurisdiction, you can't.
I just want to try teasing this apart one more time:
jr565 said...I don't think its unreasonable to ask that people who sell food have insurance, get inspections to show they are safe and have a license to show they are professional
You listed 3 things. What public or societal purpose do those 3 things serve? Arguendo: 1. the liability ins protects the public against harm by ensuring compensation if they're hurt by a product sold 2. insepctions protect the public against harm by enforcing minimum safety standards on the front end and 3. having a license protects the public by...??? Showing they are professional? Why can a business only show they're professional by proving they've bought the State's permission to do something--what does that do for the public? You can't judge for yourself who's "professional" (whatever that means) so it's ok with you that the law requires buying an indulgence from the State so that you can let that license do your thinking for you?
For 1 and 2 you give public safety justifications, but for 3 we're back to "the law is the law." Do you see the difference?
Roger Sweeny wrote:
jr565, would you have made a similar argument in, say, 1960 Mississippi? "Society allows you Negroes to live in subordination to the white race. If you want to eat in a restaurant, you can eat in a Negro one or perhaps the Negro part of a segregated restaurant. If you don't like those rules, don't eat out. If you do eat out, abide by them. Anyone who thinks that is unreasonable is bat shit insane."
If those are the rules, then you should abide by them. If you think they are terrible rules, you need to get the legislature to change them. But its not exactly analogous to selling illegal goods now is it? One of the issues with blacks not being able to eat at white restaurants was whether it was discriminatory. There is nothing discriminatory about saying if you want to sell cigarettes you have to do so lawfully.
Hoodlumdoodlum asked:
having a license protects the public by...???
It protects the owner of the businsess. And it tells the jurisdiction he wants to open a business in that they are going to abide by the laws of that jurisdiction. If they can't say that much there's no reason why a jurisdiction should allow them to open their doors, is there?
Original Mike wrote:
Well, Achiles is clearly in error. It is not a free fucking country.
Sure it is. But it's not an absolutely free country. You are free so long as you don't violate the law."
"From this day on, the official language of San Marcos will be Swedish. Silence! In addition to that, all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check."
"jr565, would you have made a similar argument in, say, 1960 Mississippi? "Society allows you Negroes to live in subordination to the white race. If you want to eat in a restaurant, you can eat in a Negro one or perhaps the Negro part of a segregated restaurant. If you don't like those rules, don't eat out. If you do eat out, abide by them. Anyone who thinks that is unreasonable is bat shit insane."
What if a state said, if you want to have a business in our jurisdiction you can't discriminate against black people? Flip it, and ask yourself if you think businesses being force to follow that long is wrong.
Roger Sweeny said...jr565, would you have made a similar argument in, say, 1960 Mississippi?
In fact it's worse than that, Roger, a closer parallel would be a Jim Crow restriction on who could run a given type of business or what kind of business could be run. If a law said white doctors could only see white patients presumably jr565 would find that law morally valid since the State can set whatever rules it wants when granting a lincense to do business, even if that rule restricts the commercial freedom of individuals to voluntarily transact in ways they desire.
Does jr565 feel there's a moral difference between the State saying "only white men can run lemonade stands" and saying "only people who pay $150k/year for a license can run lemonade stands?" I mean, the law is the law, after all, and if you want to business in a jurisdiction you have to follow that jurisdiction's laws.
Roger Sweeny wrote:
"From this day on, the official language of San Marcos will be Swedish. Silence! In addition to that, all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check."
If those were the rules then you'd need to follow them. Luckily no legislature would be stupid enough to pass those rules.
How about one a bit more realistic. If you ride a bike without a helmet you will be fined.
Now, is that a stupid rule or a good rule? Probably depends on who you ask. but if you don't wear a helmet and that's the law you're going to get a fine. If you don't like it, move to a place where that law isn't OR get the legislature to try to change the law. If a cop sees you riding a bike without a helmet you will be fined.
Hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
In fact it's worse than that, Roger, a closer parallel would be a Jim Crow restriction on who could run a given type of business or what kind of business could be run. If a law said white doctors could only see white patients presumably jr565 would find that law morally valid since the State can set whatever rules it wants when granting a lincense to do business, even if that rule restricts the commercial freedom of individuals to voluntarily transact in ways they desire.
Those laws were deemed to be unconstitutional. And so couldn't be passed. If they were constitutional though, why couldn't they be passed, and enforced?
the State can set whatever rules it wants when granting a lincense to do business, even if that rule restricts the commercial freedom of individuals to voluntarily transact in ways they desire.
If you are for people being able to transact in ways they desire why couldn't a doctor say they will only serve white people? It would be the state saying if you wanted to be a doctor in the jurisdiction you couldn't do that.
jr565 said...It protects the owner of the businsess. And it tells the jurisdiction he wants to open a business in that they are going to abide by the laws of that jurisdiction. If they can't say that much there's no reason why a jurisdiction should allow them to open their doors, is there?
It protects the owner of the business by, what? Preventing the violation of the very law itself? That's question begging, jr565. Your second sentence means: Complying with the law proves you intend to comply with the law. That's a bit better than a tautology (in that it's an assertion without support), but it doesn't relate back to public safety or other societal value at all.
Your third sentence drops the mask when you use the word "allow." We're once again talking about the State having rights as opposed to individuals, and we're in the land of kings where I as a commoner must beg permission to do anything and the King may grant or not grant that permission as he sees fit.
If you wish to live under a King this view of the State makes sense. In this view, though, all sorts of other fun regulations make sense and are morally valid. Want to move to a different city or state? Why don't you need a license from that city to do so? Why should they allow you freedom of movement through their domain? If the commerical domain is first and foremost the domain of the State, certainly their jurisdictional land must be! Come to think of it, who is allowing you to express yourself freely on the internet, jr565? Have you obtained the proper license to do so?!
Restricting peoples ability to serve only white people is restricting the commercial freedom of individuals to voluntarily transact in ways they desire.
As would forcing a society to desegregate. So, then which are you arguing for?
Hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
We're once again talking about the State having rights as opposed to individuals, and we're in the land of kings where I as a commoner must beg permission to do anything and the King may grant or not grant that permission as he sees fit.
SO is the king wrong to force you to serve your burgers to the negros?
"Complying with the law proves you intend to comply with the law. That's a bit better than a tautology (in that it's an assertion without support), but it doesn't relate back to public safety or other societal value at all."
The license allows the county or jurisdiction you are opening business in to keep track of your and other businesses. ANd it tells them that you will be abiding by laws that govern business before they allow you to open your doors and start selling stuff. In THEIR jurisdiction. Not yours. You want to open a business here? Ok, please fill out the paperwork? Oh, you wont fill out the paperwork? Then f off.
Hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
It protects the owner of the business by, what? Preventing the violation of the very law itself?
Just because you have a license doesn't mean you are going to follow the law. But it lets the county know you intend to. And without it you wont even get one foot in the door to open your business.
jr565, of course licensing laws are discriminatory. They discriminate against people who don't have the money and/or time to secure and pay for all the licenses and permits. Which ironically, does discriminate (in the disparate impact sense) against people of color.
jr565 said...As would forcing a society to desegregate. So, then which are you arguing for?
I don't know what you mean by "forcing to desegregate." May the State force you to live in a certain area, or be friends with certain people, or work in an office with a certain demographic profile? The Libertarian answer to your prior question about an individual discriminating in who they take on as customers is probably that an individual's freedom of association should allow them to discriminate in that way if they so choose unless they're providing some public service where the harm of them doing so is great enough to trump their individual right(operating a common carrier, etc). You've moved away from the question of what kinds of things the State may require in granting a license to do business, though, and have answered that even Jim Crow-type laws do not violate your moral intuition that since "the law is the law" anything that is law is equally morally valid with any other law.
"Your third sentence drops the mask when you use the word "allow." We're once again talking about the State having rights as opposed to individuals, and we're in the land of kings where I as a commoner must beg permission to do anything and the King may grant or not grant that permission as he sees fit."
You're not in the land of a king You're in the land of a Republic. WE still have state govt and federal govt, which both pass laws that we must live under.
Hoodlum wrote;
don't know what you mean by "forcing to desegregate." May the State force you to live in a certain area, or be friends with certain people, or work in an office with a certain demographic profile? The Libertarian answer to your prior question about an individual discriminating in who they take on as customers is probably that an individual's freedom of association should allow them to discriminate in that way if they so choose unless they're providing some public service where the harm of them doing so is great enough to trump their individual right(operating a common carrier, etc). You've moved away from the question of what kinds of things the State may require in granting a license to do business, though, and have answered that even Jim Crow-type laws do not violate your moral intuition that since "the law is the law" anything that is law is equally morally valid with any other law.
somebody else brought up Jim Crow. I just pointed out that Jim Crow was the law yes, but so is desegration. So, the same argument would apply there too. The law is the law there too, yes?
And imposing that would be the king imposing his will just as much as the king imposing segregation.
jr565 said...And without it you wont even get one foot in the door to open your business.
And why won't you get one foot in? Because you don't have a license and the law says you must! That is the tautology, jr, I'm asking what purpose it serves and you say it serves the purpose that you need to have it.
If it was not legally required then not having it would say nothing about your intention to follow other laws. You're just restating the inverse of that in different ways. The law says you must have a license therefore having a license says you've followed the law (saying you must have a licnese). What public need is served?
Hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
I don't know what you mean by "forcing to desegregate."
The king forced the south to desegregate, and sent in his royal knights to force the south to bend to his will.
Hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
And why won't you get one foot in? Because you don't have a license and the law says you must! That is the tautology, jr, I'm asking what purpose it serves and you say it serves the purpose that you need to have it.
You are opening a business in a jurisdiction controlled by govt which sets laws. They say you need a license to open business in their jurisdiction. Do you personally control the jurisdiction? Do you personally set the laws as to what businesses can open where and what laws need to be followed to open a business?
Why would you presume to think otherwise. If you want to open a business in most states they want you to have a business license.
jr565 said...The license allows the county or jurisdiction you are opening business in to keep track of your and other businesses.
Aha, a public benefit! Hooray, thank you! Ok, so a license is required because the State needs an index of who is doing business in given areas. Two questions: 1. Why would having an index or an entry to an index like that need to be costly (more than a few dollars/year, what with the new fangled internet they've got now) and 2. If the State just needs a business' info by what rationale would the State ever be able to restrict licenses (or disappove of a license request)? If the purpose of a license is to record info about a business how could anyone be turned down for such a license--and if that's what it really is why are we calling a license (a grant or permission issued by an authority to do some thing) and why wouldn't you just have, I dunno, a business index entry?
A business license for one provides tax information to the city about your business. Since you are going to open it in their city. BY theirs I mean govt controls the jurisdiction and sets the laws for that jurisdiction. iTs a legal authorization granted that says you are legit as a business.
jr565, thank you for saying in your 12/31/14, 5:18 PM post that a legislature will pass a law. In some of your previous posts, you had seemed to say that society made a law. As you well know, the two are not the same thing. Sometimes they are very different.
jr565 said...You are opening a business in a jurisdiction controlled by govt which sets laws.
You are expressing yourself in blog posts in a jurisdiction controlled by govt which sets laws. If the govt sets a law tomorrow that you must have a license to make blog posts (and by the way the license costs $5k/year, etc) your reaction is, what, "oh well, the law is the law?" I'm afraid you can't rely on the protection that such a law would be unConstitutional since, oops, the Constitution is a law too...
1. Why would having an index or an entry to an index like that need to be costly (more than a few dollars/year, what with the new fangled internet they've got now)
the state gets to set the cost of doing business. If you don't like said costs, you don't have to do business there.
Hoodlumdoodlum wrote;
If the govt sets a law tomorrow that you must have a license to make blog posts (and by the way the license costs $5k/year, etc) your reaction is, what, "oh well, the law is the law?"
Yes, if tomorrow govt decided that you have to pay fees upfront to have a blog, Althouse would have to decide if it was still worth it to have a blog. It doesn't mean that I would agree with the choice made by govt, but certainly govt could do that.
jr565 said...A business license for one provides tax information to the city about your business. Since you are going to open it in their city. BY theirs I mean govt controls the jurisdiction and sets the laws for that jurisdiction. iTs a legal authorization granted that says you are legit as a business.
If the purpose is tax info collection, again I ask on what basis a license request would be turned down and why that license would be costly. You can certainly pay taxes without having a business license so having a license (in itself) does not further the goal of tax collection.
"the state gets to set the cost of doing business. If you don't like said costs, you don't have to do business there.
Now I know what you mean by free markets. You're free to leave.
DeBlasio COULD get rid of all the horse drawn carriages in the city. it's a horrible idea, but there's no reason govt can't do it. And then if you wanted to drive a horse drawn carriage you suddenly couldn't any more. Again, I'd personally think it was horrible decision, and that would be one reason why I hate him as a mayor. But there's nothing saying he can't make that decision.
Original Mike wrote;
Now I know what you mean by free markets. You're free to leave.
Yes. Which is why so many businesses are leaving blue states and going to red states. Because the states offer a better business climate.
jr565 said...the state gets to set the cost of doing business.
Why, jr565? The question is why, morally, that is so.
jr565 said...Yes, if tomorrow govt decided that you have to pay fees upfront to have a blog, Althouse would have to decide if it was still worth it to have a blog. It doesn't mean that I would agree with the choice made by govt, but certainly govt could do that.
Do you think that understaning of what "govt could do" is in line with the concept of America as a nation, jr565? Possibly you're not American or don't beleive in American principles vis a vis the proper role of the State or individual liberty and freedom--if not I get that we're talking past one another, as well. I think there's a moral difference between the legal regime in North Korea and the US. From your reasoning I'm not sure you agree.
And if after Deblasio outlawed the horse drawn carriages and one lone horse drawn carriage guy was giving out illegal rides he'd be the Garner of the horsie rides. Cops would have a right to cite him or arrest him though as horse drawn carriages would then be illegal.
VOOORRRRTEEEXX!!
hoodlumdoodlum wrote:
Do you think that understaning of what "govt could do" is in line with the concept of America as a nation, jr565? Possibly you're not American or don't beleive in American principles vis a vis the proper role of the State or individual liberty and freedom--if not I get that we're talking past one another, as well. I think there's a moral difference between the legal regime in North Korea and the US. From your reasoning I'm not sure you agree
you're writing this after talking about business licenses as if businesses arent' required to have them in almost every state in the union and that my notion that they do is some extreme thing?
In the case of the govt charging blogs to exist, I don't think there's any reason they couldn't But I highly doubt they would. For a blog that's run as a business though? They might ultimately start demanding that businesses, which are using their blog to make money have to comply with requirements set by the state.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন