Comments on: “Make room for lemonade stands”

By: SPO

SPO — Wed, 05 Feb 2020 14:45:15 +0000

More likely, they let this pass . . . . but continue the intrusiveness.

Exit question–let’s say they pass this law, and some cop orders the lemonade stand to be closed, could the cop be prosecuted? That’s the question.

By: greatUnknown

greatUnknown — Tue, 04 Feb 2020 20:32:16 +0000

In reply to Rupert. "Judgment" requires effort and, often, risk-taking. Neither is popular with bureaucrats.

By: En Passant

En Passant — Tue, 04 Feb 2020 18:11:14 +0000

In reply to greatUnknown. Or maybe some idiotic legislator (but I repeat myself) will issue a press release lambasting the comments as the work of a typical free market advocate seeking to establish a lemonade monopoly and eliminate all human charitable inclinations by striking out at our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.

By: greatUnknown

greatUnknown — Tue, 04 Feb 2020 16:42:21 +0000

I suspect most in the General Assembly will accept your first two paragraphs as dispositive, and assume that the third is satire.

By: Rupert

Rupert — Tue, 04 Feb 2020 16:34:43 +0000

There is one legal principle that is the enemy of the lemonade stand, and causes laughable “cease and desist” letters, and causes the most ridiculous stories coming out of schools under zero tolerance policies. The principle that ties this all together is alleged “consistency” and the reverse side of the consistency coin, waiver. We have to go after the lemonade stands…..because if we don’t, how can we shut down an unregulated restaurant on Main Street? Under the consistency principle, you can’t treat x.1 different than x.2 because someone will sue your ass, usually on an imagined basis of racial or gender discrimination. The “consistency” principle does not itself comport with reason (“a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”) and should be replaced with “judgment.”