As utterly ridiculous as that is the fact of the matter is that she broke the law, and it's her fault for not looking into her sates laws before starting a business. Although I wish you would have cited a different website since that article reeks of Glen Beck style craziness.
But jail? I mean, really? A fine would be suitible, but ****ing jail? What the **** is that?
Would you be mad if they jailed a 4year old was jailed becasue she was selling Pink Lemonade? Besides, it's hard enough just trying to get money, than having to go through all this trouble to get papers, taxes, ect just to sell flowers?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's hard waiting around for something that you know might never happen; but it's even harder to give up when you know it's everything you ever wanted.
The justification is simple, society is accepting that certain intuitions are granted monopoly privilege. FDA, USDA, SEC, FASB, OSHA. These institutions are tasked with making market transactions fairer or making information readily available to consumers of the products. The countermeasure to the failure of these intuitions is a very slow and problematic binary decision methodology – democracy or representative democracy. If these institutions do not perform their functions properly the structure of interface demands that most of the people cast votes, indirectly, for a person that knows better.
This does not give people direct interface with their regulatory institutions and so the market as a whole cannot function properly because its’ regulatory instruments don’t. Three things are denied consumers
1) Rapid alteration or destruction / reconfiguration of regulatory institutions or internal policies that govern these institutions
2) Consumer defection or exit. With simple stuff like fast food or movie rentals or cell phones we can become disloyal on a second to second basis if we have new information revoking support for that institution. This allows a signal to emerge if the institution is working or not. Having single regulators doesn’t allow this. Convergence is not relevant as many market products converge without centralized oversight.
3) Rational ignorance is also a potential problem but i'll just save that one, suffice it to say that an individual will usually more carefully spend his money then his vote because teh value of the vote is rather low in it's ability to generate utility from a well informed expenditure vs a well informed purchase with real money.
Another word on democracy as binary: The fact that democracy provides an equal distribution of “political capital” – the vote – shows clearly the problem, knowledge itself is not equally distributed between individuals in society. Some know more than others how to run particular intuitions and some have fragmentary knowledge. Democratic decision making undermines the ability to take advantage of asymmetries of information and for people who know how do do what's right to be deployed where their skills can benefit society optimally and enable society to have functional regulatory instruments.
Sounds like a lot of details were left out of this article.
Her flower selling operation was described as being a "growing business." Now, it's ok to hold a garage sale, or for your kid to open a lemonade stand, but when your operation turns from this sort of thing into a "growing business", and you are operating this business without paying taxes on the income it makes, and without acquiring the proper license (A business license is inexpensive, and very easy to acquire.) well now you are breaking the law.
The article makes it sound like this poor woman was arrested from her flower laden porch and hauled off to jail, when in reality she most likely told the authorities to stuff it when they told her she couldn't operate her business without a permit. The next logical step, was to haul her away.
She should have just coughed up the thirty five bucks it takes to get such a license. Seriously.
Sounds like a lot of details were left out of this article.
Her flower selling operation was described as being a "growing business." Now, it's ok to hold a garage sale, or for your kid to open a lemonade stand, but when your operation turns from this sort of thing into a "growing business", and you are operating this business without paying taxes on the income it makes, and without acquiring the proper license (A business license is inexpensive, and very easy to acquire.) well now you are breaking the law.
The article makes it sound like this poor woman was arrested from her flower laden porch and hauled off to jail, when in reality she most likely told the authorities to stuff it when they told her she couldn't operate her business without a permit. The next logical step, was to haul her away.
She should have just coughed up the thirty five bucks it takes to get such a license. Seriously.
Again, breaking the law is not a moral argument. MANY things are absolutely immoral and legal. I want a moral justification, and "it's the law" is not one.
But jail? I mean, really? A fine would be suitible, but ****ing jail? What the **** is that?
Would you be mad if they jailed a 4year old was jailed becasue she was selling Pink Lemonade? Besides, it's hard enough just trying to get money, than having to go through all this trouble to get papers, taxes, ect just to sell flowers?
The justification is simple, society is accepting that certain intuitions are granted monopoly privilege. FDA, USDA, SEC, FASB, OSHA. These institutions are tasked with making market transactions fairer or making information readily available to consumers of the products. The countermeasure to the failure of these intuitions is a very slow and problematic binary decision methodology – democracy or representative democracy. If these institutions do not perform their functions properly the structure of interface demands that most of the people cast votes, indirectly, for a person that knows better.
This does not give people direct interface with their regulatory institutions and so the market as a whole cannot function properly because its’ regulatory instruments don’t. Three things are denied consumers
1) Rapid alteration or destruction / reconfiguration of regulatory institutions or internal policies that govern these institutions
2) Consumer defection or exit. With simple stuff like fast food or movie rentals or cell phones we can become disloyal on a second to second basis if we have new information revoking support for that institution. This allows a signal to emerge if the institution is working or not. Having single regulators doesn’t allow this. Convergence is not relevant as many market products converge without centralized oversight.
3) Rational ignorance is also a potential problem but i'll just save that one, suffice it to say that an individual will usually more carefully spend his money then his vote because teh value of the vote is rather low in it's ability to generate utility from a well informed expenditure vs a well informed purchase with real money.
Another word on democracy as binary: The fact that democracy provides an equal distribution of “political capital” – the vote – shows clearly the problem, knowledge itself is not equally distributed between individuals in society. Some know more than others how to run particular intuitions and some have fragmentary knowledge. Democratic decision making undermines the ability to take advantage of asymmetries of information and for people who know how do do what's right to be deployed where their skills can benefit society optimally and enable society to have functional regulatory instruments.
Her flower selling operation was described as being a "growing business." Now, it's ok to hold a garage sale, or for your kid to open a lemonade stand, but when your operation turns from this sort of thing into a "growing business", and you are operating this business without paying taxes on the income it makes, and without acquiring the proper license (A business license is inexpensive, and very easy to acquire.) well now you are breaking the law.
The article makes it sound like this poor woman was arrested from her flower laden porch and hauled off to jail, when in reality she most likely told the authorities to stuff it when they told her she couldn't operate her business without a permit. The next logical step, was to haul her away.
She should have just coughed up the thirty five bucks it takes to get such a license. Seriously.
Again, breaking the law is not a moral argument. MANY things are absolutely immoral and legal. I want a moral justification, and "it's the law" is not one.
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/
http://www.strike-the-root.com/
http://mises.org/