4 ms·

Uh, no, we haven't. Running a business is a thing that's been debated and found to be something that on the whole should be at least lightly regulated. Busines

Uh, no, we haven't. Running a business is a thing that's been debated and found to be something that on the whole should be at least lightly regulated. Businesses that sell goods intended for human consumption are additionally regulated by health codes, for good reason. The fact that a proprietor is a kid is irrelevant to the reasons behind why those codes were enacted in the first place. You can go create a business right now online that sells widgets or services or something without a permit, provided you pay your taxes due on it. The IRS even has a classification for self-employment for that express purpose. If you are selling something that is covered by some other regulation, you'll need to comply with those, but those regulations were also debated and enacted at some point because it was deemed necessary by the legislative body that enacted them. Whether you agree with that body is another issue, but it doesn't amount to "everything is defacto (sic) illegal unless it is explicitly authorized, permitted, and approved by government."

syshum 8y ago
You have a very rose colored, and academic view of government which completely different from of how regulations work and are passed in the actual real world
- mbrameld 8y ago
  Which point precisely do you disagree with and how do you support that view? Simply saying somebody is wrong is easy.
  - syshum 8y ago
    All of it, the idea that we "debate then pass" Regulations have been proven to be false by more than a few studies where by it has been shown the public opinion has almost no impact on what laws and regulations actually get passed or not. The idea that we had some kind of philosophical debate and from that we choose that business should "lightly" regulated as no connection to reality or how business regulations actually came about in history nor would I classify today's business regulations as "light" I also disagree that there are "good reasons" behind the health codes when large part of them are passed not for health reasons but for Protectionist reasons to keep out new entrants into the market (see my comments on Food Trucks as an example of this) One would have to be a ardent supporter of Authoritarianism to believe that we have anything remotely approaching freedom in modern society, that goes for any nation. yes some nations are more oppressive than others, and places like the EU and the USA may be among the most free nations when compared to the others, but that does not make them "Free", just means they are less oppressive. What people identify as freedom today is not freedom at all
wahern 8y ago
Business licenses for even mundane things have been around for well over a hundred years, particularly in cities. So generic complaints about over-regulation have little historical resonance. Not only did those debates happen, as you say; they happened a very long time ago. But a child's lemonade stand, AFAIK, never required a business license. That's new. I don't know if laws, enforcement practices, or public awareness have changed, but I don't get why people insist on defending it. My guess is that enforcement has changed, and that's partly because of the push to take discretion (de jure and de facto) away from agencies to minimize prejudiced, unequal enforcement of the law. One of the takeaways is that, because the laws were always more strictly enforced against disfavored classes, the privileged are finally getting a taste of the mundane, prosaic injustices minorities have always faced. That doesn't excuse the injustices, but it hints at why it may be difficult to address them--permitting a white kid to sell lemonade at the end of his driveway also permits a black kid to sell Coca-Cola on the street corner, which might cause consternation among some people (think of recent SF ordinances taxing soda).
- karmajunkie 8y ago
  What's probably more accurate to say is that a child's lemonade stand always required the same license, but the law was never enforced (as you point out the enforcement disparity that has always existed.)

syshum 8y ago

You have a very rose colored, and academic view of government which completely different from of how regulations work and are passed in the actual real world

mbrameld 8y ago
Which point precisely do you disagree with and how do you support that view? Simply saying somebody is wrong is easy.
- syshum 8y ago
  All of it, the idea that we "debate then pass" Regulations have been proven to be false by more than a few studies where by it has been shown the public opinion has almost no impact on what laws and regulations actually get passed or not. The idea that we had some kind of philosophical debate and from that we choose that business should "lightly" regulated as no connection to reality or how business regulations actually came about in history nor would I classify today's business regulations as "light" I also disagree that there are "good reasons" behind the health codes when large part of them are passed not for health reasons but for Protectionist reasons to keep out new entrants into the market (see my comments on Food Trucks as an example of this) One would have to be a ardent supporter of Authoritarianism to believe that we have anything remotely approaching freedom in modern society, that goes for any nation. yes some nations are more oppressive than others, and places like the EU and the USA may be among the most free nations when compared to the others, but that does not make them "Free", just means they are less oppressive. What people identify as freedom today is not freedom at all

wahern 8y ago

Business licenses for even mundane things have been around for well over a hundred years, particularly in cities. So generic complaints about over-regulation have little historical resonance. Not only did those debates happen, as you say; they happened a very long time ago. But a child's lemonade stand, AFAIK, never required a business license. That's new. I don't know if laws, enforcement practices, or public awareness have changed, but I don't get why people insist on defending it. My guess is that enforcement has changed, and that's partly because of the push to take discretion (de jure and de facto) away from agencies to minimize prejudiced, unequal enforcement of the law. One of the takeaways is that, because the laws were always more strictly enforced against disfavored classes, the privileged are finally getting a taste of the mundane, prosaic injustices minorities have always faced. That doesn't excuse the injustices, but it hints at why it may be difficult to address them--permitting a white kid to sell lemonade at the end of his driveway also permits a black kid to sell Coca-Cola on the street corner, which might cause consternation among some people (think of recent SF ordinances taxing soda).

karmajunkie 8y ago
What's probably more accurate to say is that a child's lemonade stand always required the same license, but the law was never enforced (as you point out the enforcement disparity that has always existed.)