(no subject)
9/8/10 16:42![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
gunslnger.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsInspectors Shut Down Girl's Lemonade Stand
Looks like a pretty logical consequence of over zealous regulation and a zero-tolerance mindset to me.
It's nice that the county chairman apologized for the action, but that doesn't really change the fact that the action was perfectly legitimate according to the rules. If there's something that you want to allow, it needs to be made allowable, it shouldn't be an enforcement exception. This reduces the rule of law and makes it that much more uncertain as to whether you will be in violation of the law or not.
It's hardly unusual to hear small business owners gripe about licensing requirements or complain that heavy-handed regulations are driving them into the red.
So when Multnomah County shut down an enterprise last week for operating without a license, you might just sigh and say, there they go again.
Except this entrepreneur was a 7-year-old named Julie Murphy. Her business was a lemonade stand at the Last Thursday monthly art fair. The government regulation she violated? Failing to get a $120 temporary restaurant license.
Looks like a pretty logical consequence of over zealous regulation and a zero-tolerance mindset to me.
It's nice that the county chairman apologized for the action, but that doesn't really change the fact that the action was perfectly legitimate according to the rules. If there's something that you want to allow, it needs to be made allowable, it shouldn't be an enforcement exception. This reduces the rule of law and makes it that much more uncertain as to whether you will be in violation of the law or not.
(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 23:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/8/10 23:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 00:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 00:43 (UTC)but still totally redic
I feel like this already happened once or twice before and this is a repeat... confirm/deny
confirming myself
Date: 10/8/10 00:44 (UTC)Re: confirming myself
Date: 10/8/10 00:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 01:36 (UTC)LEAVE JULIE ALONE! PLEEEEASE!!
Date: 10/8/10 01:36 (UTC)But seriously, yeah, inspectards definitely overstepped.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 02:10 (UTC)Don't agree with that at all. It's impossible to come up with every scenario when writing a law. That's what human judgement is for.
When we put people in a position to enforce rules without letting them think (see: mandatory minimums, zero tolerance), we get nonsense. This is a different kind of nonsense, but it's a symptom of the same problem.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 02:13 (UTC)Instead of wasting time and money trying to ticket kids they should offer workshops through local governments for parents and kids who want to set up a lemonade stand that teach cleanliness, safety, etc.
But that would be encouraging capitalism. :P
What's next, busting kids for babysitting without a nanny license?
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 02:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 03:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 03:19 (UTC)Fuck yeah. Don't you know the order of progression?
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 03:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 03:42 (UTC)Re: LEAVE JULIE ALONE! PLEEEEASE!!
Date: 10/8/10 04:26 (UTC)The mother drove her daughter to a fair to sell a product.
It's not like the girl set up a lemonade stand outside her home.
I'm not sure why a lemonade stand with a girl serving and mother overseeing gets special treatment as opposed to a lemonade stand run directly by adults, as opposed to with adult supervision.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 04:26 (UTC)This lemonade stand was operating at a fair/carnival.
(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 04:28 (UTC)If you're a white girl, you can sell products at a location where everyone else has to pay a licensing fee for.
Re: confirming myself
Date: 10/8/10 04:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 04:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 04:43 (UTC)<--- Duped by Gunslngr
Date: 10/8/10 05:09 (UTC)*re-reads*
Oops. I missed that part. Well. That changes things. =P
Re: <--- Duped by Gunslngr
Date: 10/8/10 05:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 05:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/8/10 05:40 (UTC)