Bitcoin Forum

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/04/justice/florida-feeding-homeless-charges/index.html

I can see their point... if you keep feeding the problem, it will never go away.

Give a man a fish...

Cop shouldn't be harassing a 90 year old mans actions "Jail won't work :P)
Not like he has anything else to do but give food to homeless people.
Then again who creates a law that bans public food ordnance that's like saying we ban giving out meals lets give them some money so they can get alcohol and knocked up instead.

But Abbott, who has been helping feed homeless people in the area through his Love Thy Neighbor nonprofit since 1991, said authorities are targeting the city's most vulnerable residents.
"These are the poorest of the poor. They have nothing. They don't have a roof over their head," he said. "Who can turn them away?"

Well damn hes already been doing it for 23 years law's can be a real B***h though.

In 1999 he sued the city for banning him from feeding homeless people on the beach -- and won, according to WPLG.
He said the threat of charges won't stop him from doing it again.
"I'm not afraid of jail. I'm not looking to go, but if I have to, I will," he said.

On Wednesday, Abbott said he'll be at Fort Lauderdale Beach, ready to serve another meal.

(Wonder if the cops arrested him today though)

I commend the guy for doing this good deed for over 2 decades. And at the old age of 90 I'm surprised he's still getting trouble from the law at this stage in his life. Guess that's what you get for helping the homeless...

Yes, I agree with you to a certain extent. But when the system cannot provide for people, who should do so if not others? This is really scary, they are basically saying you cannot help people that cannot survive on their own. They surely won't start a riot because no one would follow homeless people, so they are not a danger. They are worth less than animals in a zoo, because at least those produce a revenue. I'm sure we'll see concentration camps open again one day, and homeless people won't be the only ones to go there.

Agreed.
But that's the country we live in. It's mostly about the greenback and the GREED. If you can't get enough
of the $$$, you must utilize your police force and military. When there's a will, there's a way.

HOA

How do you know these people cannot survive on their own?  What if they are just lazy, like dank?  If a city has provided services to a person for a couple years and they are able to work but unwilling, why should the city keep paying for those services?

That's really shocking. What's the world coming to, I wonder?

they should award that guy who was giving food to peoples
but looks like they don't want to see hungry people getting food

Economic depression isn't exactly a fault for the common man.

Kicking people when they are down doesn't solve the fundamental issue.

Looks like compassion is anti-american...

The 'problem' will go away when the homeless people die of starvation, meanwhile the 1%ers will find more loopholes to avoid paying tax.

It's ridiculous that someone got arrested for helping another...doesn't matter if you keep feeding them the problem witll always be there....we are always going to have homeless because of the forever rising prices....for arresting a man for doing a good thing which is just in the morals of humans is just sad people will be scared of helping each other in the future and that will be a very bad day.

I should imagine some people do this to exploit others....but that doesn't mean you should get disciplined for it....if anything they should investigate and get rid of the people who are exploiting.

They have signs up to not feed the bears/wildlife/pigeons...

IF that were the case that they're just lazy, let them be lazy. Doesn't justify the law. Don't criminalize charity, it's just needless regulation.

You know the saying: no good deed goes unpunished.

The idea that someone might care, or want to help others is a dangerous one, after all... ::)

No this is wrong

Obviously the government is right

EXCEPT you need a city issued permit, you can only fish in certian areas, you can only fish at certian times and you can only catch a certian amount.

Odds are that man would die.

I agree 100%. If you continue to feed the homeless then they will have no incentive to improve their lives and get a job, ect.

I think the rational behind the law is actually due to health code concerns though

He was an old man who did what he thought was right to help the needy
Yes incenting folks to work is important but cannot be expected of an old guy
The reaction was shocking nevertheless

People had incentive to work but then we had stagflation and inflation.  Minimum wage in the United States is no longer adequate for a decent lifestyle and this removing a lot of incentive to work when entitlements and handouts (and undeclared income) are worth more.



Minimum wage in Florida is a bit under $8 and thus a lot of people there are only making $8.50-$10 a hour.   Florida has long been a tourism and retirement economy where most of the work is part time and/or seasonal.  


So working (to make a rich person richer) would only pay for a room in somebody's basement and that would require like 100 hours of pre-tax work each month for this hypothetical low income person.


People say these minimum wage jobs are a step to something better but I'm not honestly seeing it.  I remember the 1990s when you did see teenagers working at McDonalds but nowadays I see a lot of aged (50+ year old) people working in fast food and other low income positions.

This has nothing to do with the minimum wage. It's about how we have evolved to a fascist police state.

He got another citation
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/undeterred-by-arrest-90-year-old-florida-man-gets-another-citation-for-feeding-the-homeless/ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/undeterred-by-arrest-90-year-old-florida-man-gets-another-citation-for-feeding-the-homeless/)

feeding homeless is quite noble act and at the age of 90 it's amazing...... i mean they should appreciate the old fellow instead of putting him to jail

I find this kind of myopia amazing; it's kind of like the "it's your fault that you're poor", even if you work several jobs and still barely make enough to feed your family.

I wonder if you would hold on to those views if you were to become homeless one day - or do you think it can't possibly happen to you?

feeding the homeless is a blessing, even if it is necessary, every country should make a rule that the homeless life borne by the state, as we know that the homeless do not have a home and a steady job, they are very difficult to finance their lives, the government should create a program to the homeless so they can afford for the money, and they are able to meet their basic needs ...  :o

Well it is generally a person's fault because they live in poverty. Even when they work "several" jobs they are all low/no skill jobs which they are generally overpaid to work.

There are also a ridiculous number of social programs that will give the "poor" free food and money for nothing in order to help them "pay for things"

Check your privilege

This sort of contempt is why the middle class is disappearing.  I know a lot of good middle class jobs that were made redundant after 2000, the corporation changed the title and tried to pass it off as 'unskilled labor'.  

Can you not look any deeper for the reason of homelessness?

Homeless people are not the problem.  The problem is our greed based society that makes people homeless when they can no longer offer the system anything.

Teaching a man to fish doesn't mean shit if you're going to take half of his fish away as a tax for teaching him.

The alternative though is that if everyone shares no one has an incentive to innovate.
Unless they get a reward
Ah capitalism

If i want to give something to somebody for free, it's not your business. It's MY BUSINESS. Sue the cops. Fuck capitalism. "File sharing" economy right now!!!

It is quite disturbing the contempt some people here have for the homeless.  

Nobody in a rich society should have to sleep on a cold pavement or go hungry.  Food and shelter are things you can provide to people, if you removed the middle men bureaucrats through a basic income, for probably $800 per adult and indexed to inflation.
 

The recent bailout in the US is said to be between $16-$30 trillion.  Why is it ok for corporations to get corporate welfare but it is bad when people get welfare?   $30 trillion is such that you could fund 100 million people on a basic income for 30 years.  While that $30 trillion in the bail out has gone to CEO bonuses, art collections and yachts.

There's only a few choices to pick:

1) Have no fish.
2) Earn an honest half a fish.
3) Earn an dishonest whole fish.
4) Steal a full or half fish.
5) Expect others to give you a free whole or half fish.

I've picked #2 in life. What about you?


I don't really agree with this blanket statement you've placed on every homeless person. Everyone homeless will have their own reasons for their situation.
Example: Let's say a blacksmith refuses to admit that the world doesn't need blacksmiths anymore, he stubbornly refuses to move with the times in another career. No work, no money, loses house etc...
Now, is this society's fault or the ex-blacksmiths?

Oh?  It's dishonest for people to eat the whole fish they catch?

That's a new one.

Yet it's honest for thugs to threaten violence if you don't give them a cut of your fish?

Hmm..

And in regards to your last statement, there are not enough jobs for everyone, it is that simple.  Regulations constrict the economy to the benefit of the present establishment.

Robotic integration results in a system that values growth of the system without any regard for the well being of humans.  Sorta like a virus, leaching off the life of humanity.

And how could a system as such tolerate sharing?  That devoids the power of the system completely.

I hope they're happy when the crime rate rises because an army of homeless people who have had their food supply removed from them will more than likely start helping themselves and I would rather live in a neighbourhood that feeds the crackheads than one that doesn't :(

Dank - just fuck off...

wrong there are always more choices, only yourself limit it.

6) Bring some kinetic tools to tell the ones wanting to steal the others half of your fish whom it belongs to, and what are the costs associated with an attempted theft...

and this lie in your 2) and 3) about dishonest and honest is just lazy... I expected more from you.

You see, the fallacy there is that it assumes the outcome is only dependent on the person's own actions, and nothing else - which is nonsense, of course. Among other things, that mentality ignores the circumstances the person is in, as TaunSew's post alluded to, but it also ignores the environment that person grew up in and the opportunities it was afforded. I mean, just look at the studies for social mobility in developed countries and see how the US is doing.

No we haven't. It all has to do with what people are willing to put up with because of their ignorance.

From http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/

----------

Sick of taking Orders and earning no money from complying with the Orders?

Buy an Invoice Pad today, to BILL the next Public SERVANT that Orders thou [You] !

(thou = singular cf. Ye - Nominative / You - Objective which are Plurals... i will explain later)

Example:

When A[NY] Public SERVANT stops thou at the side of the road and Orders a PERFORMANCE of and/or from thou by way of the use of His (or Her) Voice, these  UTTERANCES are defined as HIS (or HER) Wishes AND Orders delivered upon thou (placing a Burden Upon thou!)

 Example(s) :

    ORDERS thou as a [wo]man to get out of YOUR car !
    ORDERS thou, as a [wo]man  to "GIVE-UP" up his or her  "GIVEN-name"!
    ORDERS thou, as a [wo]man to perform ANY task (such as hand-over a Licence)!
    et ceteras, et cetaras, et ceteras...

Deliever Upon HIM (or HER) a BILL (an INVOICE) !

(BILL / INVOICE: c. 1400; that of "order to pay" ( technically 'Bill of Exchange' is from 1570s)

Example:

When "HE" or "SHE" ( a Public Servant) makes their WISHES to perform known and ORDER(s) Upon thou ( a man or woman) make sure to require of Him or Her to remember "Fair-and-Just" COMPENSATION, is now due for carrying-out His or Her Wishes and ORDER(s)!

----------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae4nLVs98RM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjlPFU8mx00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR-URtdjaH8

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw


:)

If everyone else has to give away a little bit extra fish to compensate for the one stuffing the whole one down his gullet, yes.


I don't disagree with you, but should we pay taxes or not in the first place is beyond the scope of this thread.


Again I don't disagree, let's hope the situation improves.
What I was trying to point out is that it isn't always society's fault for a person being homeless as you claimed in your statement.
Another example: A gambling addict gambles away his possessions and eventually his home, now he's left on the street. Is this society's fault or his?

Every homeless person will have a different tale to tell, sometimes it's their fault for the situation, others it was out of their control.
Either way, it's a sad situation and they need all the support we can give them to get them back on their feet.

Open your eyes.

Not sure why a city thinks they need to regulate this man's charity. There seem to be more homeless now than ever in my lifetime. Keeping them out of site isn't going to make them go away.

If we stop feeding them there will be less homeless than ever in your lifetime.  Survival of the least lazy.   ;)

Until they start helping themselves, muggings and burglary and street crime will all go up if they stop feeding the crazys in any western city

True enough,
A lack of social services and support mechanisms for those who need it to get back from there will just result in increased crime rates
Or the American model where people go to jail for being poor in essence and well at least in jail they get their meals
Otherwise they would have been more productive to society if something was there to help them.

+1 on this (maybe not less homeless people, but less people who don't have money to eat). If you cut off a person's lifeline then they will find a way to get the money to support themselves which will generally mean to get a job and/or spend less money on frivolous things.

More like survival of the greediest.

But even that is an illusion nearing an abrupt end.

You're both greedy and lazy dank.  Six of one, half a dozen of the other.   ;)

Notable quotation from Vod's post:

"I can see their point... if you keep feeding the problem, it will never go away."

"He can see their point" meaning he believes the police's actions were justified in arresting someone for feeding the homeless
"If you keep feeding the problem" notice how he refers to the homeless as "the problem", the context here is obviously feeding the homeless
"It will never go away" the homeless man is referred to by the pronoun "it", as if referring to a different species

Depends how you read it.
Does "feeding the problem" refer to homelessness or does he mean keep feeding them doesn't really tackle the problem of getting them out of homelessness?
Also he could of been referring to the problem as "it" instead of the man as the "it".

Maybe I read it wrong.

Regardless of your opinion on if the law is just or not, the police officers were only doing their job. If they see someone breaking the law repeatedly then they must take action and arrest the criminal.

He was referring to the problem being the fact that people are homeless and are a burden to society. If you feed the homeless then they have zero incentive to work and actually contribute to society.

That man is forcing others to support his charity by using an improper venue and not complying with public health regs.

If he feeds the homeless some bad potato salad and they all get food poisoning, the taxpayers are on the hook for the bills.

When his free food is done being digested, the homeless deposit the resulting fecal matter all over the park, streets, and sidewalks.

The taxpayers who built and maintain the park can't enjoy it when it's full of begging, infected, drug-addled, stinking, dangerous crazy people.

He could work with established soup kitchens, food banks, and shelters.  But that would make too much sense.

He could invite the homeless into his own home, but that wouldn't create the media circus he's attention whoring for.

Yeah our justice system is clearly behind in the morals department. I blame the flawed system, Maybe if we had better outlets and funding the homeless would not be a problem. Seems kind of counterproductive to hand out felony's for every small infraction, Felonies that keep people from finding work or homes. Maybe this is the main reason behind our homeless problem?

Just doing their jobs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials)

Nice Godwin!  Because discouraging bums from shitting free food all over a neighborhood park is EXACTLY like the Third Reich.

Thanks for derailing this duplicate thread before it took up any more space.   8)

It's not an example of Godwin's law.

There have been several atrocities throughout history which were being justified as people "just doing their jobs"

And yes, refusing someone a basic need, like the right to nutrition, bears striking similarities to the Third Reich, I never said it was exactly like the Third Reich.

The only one derailing the thread by talking about shit is you

That's not accurate though. The police can use discretion, as in making the determination "it's not the best use of my time to arrest someone who is performing a charitable act." Using the term "criminal" is unwarranted. Technically correct, since it's "against the law," but just because something is against the law doesn't mean the law is appropriate. This is a good example of it not being. But back to discretion and cops using it to opt not to enforce bad laws, the way you know police have discretion is that they don't pull over every motorist going 1 or 2 mph over the speed limit. Those guys are breaking the law as well, ("criminals" is the word you used) but it's clearly not a good use of a cop's time to pull over a motorist who is only going 1 or 2 mph over the speed limit. They DO use discretion not to enforce the law in those cases. The cop could have similarly used his discretion not to enforce a dumb law here.

Whether or not you agree with his overall point, it actually is EXACTLY an example of Godwin's Law. It is a perfect example that proves the rule.

Not all over Florida apparently. This was an ordinance, which means it was passed by a city. I think it was Fort Lauderdale?

Godwin's law confimed, which automatically ends the discussion. OP please lock the thread.

OMG R U SAYING THAT PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT PLACES PREFER TO LIVE BY DIFFERENT RULES?

THAT IS AN ATTACK ON MUH LIBURTEEZ!  SEND IN THE ANARCHIST POLICE TO ARREST THESE OPPRESSORS!

DOWN WITH LOCAL CONTROL!  WE MUST HAVE THE EXACT SAME LAWS EVERYWHERE OR WE HATE FREEDUMB!

/first world anarchist angst

http://www.boredpanda.com/funny-first-world-anarchists-rebels/

I don't care where you live you should be able to feed homeless people if you like.

IKR?  Why should the people effected by the problems feeding homeless creates have a say in the matter?

If you want to sacrifice their property values for the sake of your altrusim, that's freedom at work.

If they don't want the homeless to shit our your free food all over their park/sidewalk/street/lawns, they should invite the homeless into their houses to use a toilet.  And if they don't want them sleeping/shoot up in the park, they should let them stay in a spare bedroom.

People have no right to control their own communities and set standards to ensure safe food distribution, sanitation, etc.

The Anarchist Police should force everyone who works for a living to share their earned resources with those who don't.

Because Freedom!

*hoists Black Flag; rages against the machine*

Look up the Nuremburg Defense  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_defense)before you make yourself look like an idiot again

I respect your opinions and that, but come on, comparing this incident to the Nazi leaders and the unthinkable horrors they caused was a cheap shot.

I told you weeks ago how Blocknet is going to sub ICO almost right after launch and all I heard was "stop fudding, go away"  :)

Just the Nanny State turning up the heat a little more.
Eventually we will reach boiling point, at which time everything that is not compulsory will be illegal.

You think I need to look up common knowledge like the history of the Nuremberg Trials?

Sorry, but I'm not as ignorant as you are and won't let your argumentum ad Hitlerum pass without justified mockery and proper invocation of Godwin's Law.   ;D

If you can't tell the difference between Nazi war crimes and enforcing municipal food handling regulations, just give up because you failed at life.

Read the page please.

I beg you, please read.

It's not a fallacy, it's a plea.

It's not "common knowledge", it's a description of the plea.

Clearly you haven't read it

Shouting would encroach on private property.  It is a bad analogy.
And...the appeal of neighborhood rights generally in regards to new restrictions on use of public property is pretty thin gruel.
It was already illegal to defecate publicly (as also is your shouting)
The neighbors have no more right than anyone else to public lands, only to their private property.

However...  The city can do this, as stupid or as silly as it may seem, and as poorly handled as in this case.
Apparently they voted against this guy to do this sort of thing.  There are about 20 or 30 other cities in the US that also have similar restrictions on use of public property for food distribution.  Some have limits on frequency or volume so giving away half your sandwich might not get you busted.

It is a silly law and we like to make fun of governments when they do silly things like this.
Florida outlawed sharia and almost outlawed the internet last year due to a badly worded law against internet gambling cafes.
http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/07/florida-outlaws-smart-phones-and-computers/
Concerned moms also got "Breaking Bad" dolls banned from Toys R Us there. 

And the police force are among the worst speeders.  The story that broke the news on that won a pulitzer:
http://www.pulitzer.org/files/2013/public-service/01day1.pdf

It is a weird state, lots of tourism, alligators and manatees, and famous for being the drug cartel drop point for a few decades, this is pretty much just par for the course, but folks love it.

http://www.sifter.org/~brandyn/Democracy.png

You probably right. One should create a bisiness and give them a job. This would solve the problem.

Shouting as in screaming? That's your first amendment right

Disturbing the peace is the typical charge.  In most all US jurisdictions it abridges the 1st amendment.
There are lots of bad laws.  Florida has more than its share.

Here's another:  Consenting adults having sex is a crime.  Apparently it includes such things as licking a boob unless you are a baby and mother.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/800.02
800.02 Unnatural and lascivious act.
A person who commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance violate this section.

Seriously though, what other guy in jail is going to look around and say "Hey, that's the 90 year old guy who feeds the homeless. I bet I'd get major street cred for picking a fight with him!"
Also, what police officer is going to think he can get away with roughing up a 90 year old dude who's in the national news?

Is your head really so far up your ass to believe that the majority of people in the cities that pass these bans against humans feeding humans really support this shit?

Or are you just a troll spreading your ANARCHY IS ENSLAVEMENT TO FREEDOM fud?

It is much more complicated then feeding other people. The laws have to do with food safety and having a food license in order to distribute food. If this old man were to have obtained a license to serve food (like all restaurants are required to have) and be subject to the same sanitary inspections then he would be able to give away food to whoever he wants

Freedom is slavery. War is (Nobel) Peace.

I was just wtfing over that comment above you Eisenhower34 and then I just went "Ohhhh It's dank!" lol :P yeah, don't bother trying to respond to him guys, he's one of our resident psychopaths.

Right, because in this world, sanctioned murder is an act of peace and sanity, while speaking of nonviolence, love and equality, is an act of psychopaths.

So like someone mentioned, kids sharing food should be illegal (by your logic) and picking fruit from a tree should be as well.

Who knows what kind of dirty things that tree may have.  Lets just monopolize all of our food into the loving hands of monsanto and the FDA so we cant consume any real food food that is not given to us by mass produced commercial agriculture drenched in pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, with gmo in the core of each bite.

Because its much better to consume food that kills all living organism than to have the right to choose what food you want to enter your body.

It makes so much sense now.  People aren't passing these laws to hurt homeless people, they're disallowing the feeding of homeless out of pure love and concern that the food is unhealthy.

Goodbye farmers markets!

Up next, prohibition of the distribution of water! (That doesn't contain that scrumptious, brain calcifying, aluminum industry waste product fluoride and that oh so healthy chlorine to bleach your body).

Cause you know, we gotta make sure everyone has a sparkling smile.

Florida has laws we libertarian types would not like in our freewheeling communities because it is full of old people.

When you are old, the homeless are more disturbing to your peace, which is reflected in their local regulations.

Old folks can more easily break a hip if a crazy/grumpy/drunk/high/entitled homeless person shoves them.

Old folk's weaker immune systems are more likely to be effected by pathogens transmitted by the homeless.

Old folks are more likely to have visiting family who wish to use a park that is not filled with feeding/crapping/camping/begging/stealing/fighting/disturbed homeless people.

As a libertarian, I'm sure you favor local control and realize that what works for healthy 20/30/40 somethings in San Francisco or Seattle doesn't necessarily work for the 60+ senior citizens of Florida.

A public park is subject to the tragedy of commons if the those who pay for its upkeep (IE local taxpayers) have no authority in its administration.  Yes, in our ideal Libertopia there would be no public parks and all communities would only have one law (Crowley's "Do as thou whilt..." maxim), but you are intelligent enough to see my point stands regardless.

The bridge to Libertopia is build with stones of local control and the mortar of federalism.

(I changed the original "bricks" in the previous sentence to "stones" because bricks are all the same size but stones are organic and nonuniform).   ;D

You are taking what is allowed by the laws out of context. No two kids sharing food is not illegal because that would not be distributing food to the public. Yes picking fruit is illegal if you are picking it from a tree that you do not own (theft) however if you pick fruit from your own tree for your own consumption then it would not be illegal because it would be for your own consumption.

Any food that is distributed to the public does not need to be mass produced (although it is more cost efficient to do so), it is that anyone that distributes food need to have a license so the health inspectors can know to check on their food safety procedures to make sure people that are distributing food to the public are not a threat to the public health

If they didn't create strawmen by ignoring context, they'd have no argument at all.

The paucity of logical reasons to support the "anything goes no matter what the taxpayers who bear the costs want" position leaves them no choice.

If you deny them their perceived entitlement to externalize costs and savage the commons you will be called a war criminal, enemy of freedom, hater of the poor hungry homeless, etc.   ::)

How dare we refuse to subsidize the altruism of others?  That's literally worse than Cheney!!!11!!!!!1!

None of this "old people are vulnerable" stuff or even the "tragedy of the commons" really matters as much as the demographics.  If there were more homeless, (and if they voted), the old people would be forced to pay for everything for the homeless and put up with all of the noise and diseases and such without recourse until they left (if they could).  Its less about what's "right", than it is about who is the majority.

Speaking of US demographics, have the babyboomers spent all the social security money yet?  Isn't that set to run out just about the time that demographic bubble pops?  A democratic republic might be the worst system there is, except for all the others.

The US Constitution was artfully constructed to avoid such tyranny of the majority via a Republic checked and balanced by various mechanisms (Electoral College, Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers, etc).

Old people on fixed incomes move the hell away from jurisdictions where the moochers of the FSA have a majority or plurality.

We still don't live in the dystopic unlimited democracy you posit, thankfully.  That's why it's Time For Hillary!  [*BARF*]

All, 100%, every homeless person in the United States, is the result of liberal government policy.  In fact homelessness is used by the left to make you walk the line.  To scare you to go to school.  To scare you to pay your property taxes.  It is government and liberals that kicked the 99% out of the parks.  The Koch brothers welcomed the 99% to the parks.

This is all wrong.  there is no "tragedy of the commons", there is "tragedy of private property".  It was only when the government put hunting regulations on the Rocky Mountain elk that applied to public and private land did the populations rebound!  If people would be allowed to do on private property whatever they want would the Rocky Mountain elk go extinct.

Social Security can never go bankrupt.  As there will always be money coming in from the workers.

Yep.

But help me with this disambiguating this one:  FSA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSA

EG: "Union thugs, ghetto trash, undergraduate Marxists, illegal immigrants, and the professional homeless industry are the ground troops of the Democrat's FSA."

This guy has it exactly right:

I'm interested to know where you draw the line between people having rights and people having the authority to make laws that affect other people's rights.

It's a difficult question because the answer varies depending on local conditions.

The federal authority must be strictly libertarian (IE minimally statist).

The 50 States and their constituent regions/counties/municipalities/school districts/homeowner associations are laboratories of democracy which experiment with the trade offs between security and liberty to find the optimum balance and compete in the marketplace of jurisdictions to acquire citizens to pay taxes and consume their services.

I choose to live in a place where economic freedom is relatively low but personal freedom is relatively high.  It's not a perfect fit, but the weather is really nice!   ;D

(Does that mean Florida?)

In response to this here, and also what you just wrote in the other topic about this same subject:


My question then is are you OK with limitations on individual freedom as long as they don't come from the federal level? I suppose I'm trying to find the line between where my absolute right to not be restricted in my actions meets your right to freedom of association, and by extension to use force to restrict actions of mine you don't like.

I personally don't put much emphasis on the distinction between use of force by the feds vs. use of force by the states or local governments. It seems to me either we are free or we are not. The manner by which we are not free (feds vs. local authority) is not very critical.

It is a pretty important distinction.  You might consider rethinking your approach.  Government is a social cost, anything that needs governing costs therefore...
Start with the maxim: "That governs best which governs least"

And you get this corollary:
The smallest unit of government that can effectively manage something is the proper level of government to do so.

In most cases this would be individuals governing themselves, above that would be a head of household.

In this case of the sandwich gifting, it is a city, which is a pretty big government.  Some cities also care how sweet your drinks are.

When you get all the way up to a Nation State, there shouldn't be all that much left for them to do...  but democracy changes that over time.
In most jurisdictions, we've even gone so far as to put them in charge some of the most intensely personal of decisions, of when people die, through progressively intrusive legislation over generations.

I'm not saying it's ultimately not a distinction worth making, I'm just saying that when your freedom is being infringed, it matters less who is doing it than the fact that it is happening. I guess I'm taking issue with the reasoning that because a local government is restricting my freedom, I should be more OK with it than if it was the federal government. That doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. I accept the idea that states should be allowed to set their own laws. That doesn't make states restricting my freedom more palatable.

Under the maxim you quoted, every regulation would make the government less good, so it would stand to reason that the best governments allow the most freedom through the least number of regulations. So when a regulation is passed about who you can give sandwiches to, it stands to reason that it's a pretty unnecessary restriction of freedom. (At least judged solely by this maxim. I would tend to agree, just for different reasons.)

I don't see why this requires such extensive discourse.

It's his liberty to feed the homeless in a public place. Period.

No ifs, buts, or permits. Freedom means freedom

Oh, if only the world were as simple as your mind.

But it isn't.

"Freedom" requires freedom of association.  Which entails like-minded individuals forming communities which reflect their values.

When you grow up, you will understand that only a tiny minority of humanity wishes to live under minarchist local conditions.

The vast majority want food safety regulations enforced at the (non-federal) local level.

Liberty does not obligate others to subsidize an individual's act of altruism.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

Now go put on your trenchcoat and go wave your black flag around at the mall.  I hear Hot Topic is having a sale on piercings!   :D

This is good, you made it a good part of the way.  My statement was not enough to take it further so here's a sign post for the next step:
Which is the better governance, is there a difference, and why?
1) The father that requires his child to be home by midnight on weekends.
2) A similar city curfew.
3) A national curfew.
4) A global curfew.

All laws must require enforcement in order to be law. Enforceability is primarily a matter of geography, and of what authority holds the uncontested right of force within that geography.
So please consider whether the calculus of "# of regulations" is therefore an insufficient gauge for measuring government freedom restrictions, and consider also the number of square meters/kilometers those regulations cover in their scope.

It would be that simple if people like you didn't make it complicated for people.

The only reason I remarked on the number of regulations was because you brought it up. I was, in effect, using your own example without subscribing to the belief myself. It's a snappy maxim, for sure, but number of regulations is somewhat immaterial to me. Rather, the quality of the regulations is my concern. More freedom and fewer regulations can be correlated, but are not necessarily the same. (As a rather silly example, a law that it is illegal to kill someone with a firearm and a separate law that is illegal to kill someone with a vehicle does not make us less free. While it would be easier to have one law that simply makes killing illegal, having a higher number of regulations that effect the same result would not make us less free, which is why the quality of the regulations matter more than the quantity. I'm concerned with laws that limit freedom.)

As for the examples of curfews, I don't consider familial restrictions by a parent-child relationship a valid analogy, and I view all three curfews imposed by the different levels of government as invalid and unnecessary. The base issue with curfews is the same as with any other issue: does freedom of association give you the right to use force to curtail the freedom of other people? My answer to that is no; that your inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property justly derived remain inalienable by all others. Inalienability doesn't end at majority vote. That's what makes it inalienable.

Maybe it was a simple misunderstanding.  I saw # of regulations as your addition not mine.
"That government is best which governs least" is from Henry David Thoreau.
It advocates for the smallest government practical.
It doesn't really equate to the quantity of regulations.  It is also scope.  Small government.

A "least" government can be considered as most local to the issue governed.  The absolute most direct would be self government.

Whether your view of a curfew being valid or necessary, is somewhat less material than whether it is enforced (or even enforceable).
Whether a right is inalienable has a lot to do with what is doing the alienation.

We likely agree on general principles anyhow.

i cant believe this shit acually happens!! this is so wrong in every way

At one point in time I would have found this type of behavior surprising, however the more and more we see of this coming out of the United States, the more I am thinking that we're approaching the end of the US as a superpower. How can a nation that is one of the richest in the world yet have so many homeless people, and then criminalize feeding them is shocking.

IKR?  Why can't this guy feed the homeless like everyone else, in compliance with local food safety regulations?

How massive his sense of entitlement must be to impose this shit on a public park.

He should use his own backyard, or better yet a church/soup kitchen/food bank/shelter, instead of forcing others to subsidize his altruism.

The most shocking thing of all is how many people idiots believe that since his heart is in the right place, he can do no wrong and any restrictions on time/place/manner are an outrage.   ;)

You keep repeating the lie about him being detained for "feeding homeless people."

But repeating that lie will not make it any more true than repeating "Hands up - don't shoot" will persuade a grand jury.

The man was detained for disobeying food safety regulations.

He could have fed the homeless in compliance with those regulations and not been detained.

But that fact is inconvenient to your sophomoric Marxist fuck-the-police free-shit-for-everybody narrative, so you carefully ignore it.   :D

Cops are the topic I see on every other thread in this section. I think that says something itself.

The only question here is, cops do their job, so what is wrong with what they did? I can't believe law is overtaking people's common sense nowadays/

I cannot believe an state has a law that forbid a person to help others. 

I also.
It seems that in USA is completely different mentality and culture than in Europe.
In Europe we have public kitchen for homeless and many civil organizations helping them (including individuals).
I'm happy that I live in Europe.

It is probably good for your psychology to think you are better, so please feel welcome to continue that.
However if you think that the USA does not have public kitchens for homeless and many civil organizations for helping them, you are ignorant.  There are many.

I am also happy that you live in Europe.
There are some very nice European places, like everywhere else.

All countries have public kitchens in this days, not only european countries, and given we don't find a better solution, it is the best that people can do.  That is the reason why I think nobody should go jail for helping others, because that is against our values and it is also against the american values and christian values. By sure it is against the universal human beings values.

american's are basically a christian society

well i say to you america

Help the Needy

    "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. "And all the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' "Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink? 'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 'And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' "And the King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.' "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.' "Then they themselves also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?' "Then He will answer them, saying, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (NAS, Matthew 25:31-46)


I imagine based on the teachings of Jesus you are going to burn in hell


I am not affiliated with any "ism's" or religions but continue to be astounded at the hypocrisy of the nations that are religion based

What a wonderful god you believe in!  One that will torture people for eternity just for using their intelligence to learn what the world really is.

I am not affiliated with any "ism's" or religions but continue to be astounded at the hypocrisy of the nations that are religion based



just quoting their own text back to the Christians

a true religion or any ism should be based on logical philosophical discussion

I find it hard to believe in a religion let alone a specific religion where one guy says lets cut the top of his dick off and people think this is ok

e.g. Logic if i cut myself i endanger my health with blood borne pathogens, in a time where a simple cut could be life or death they decide to cut the top of your dick off, no logic

There is no such law.  The OP is a lie.

LoL this is really awesome! One cannot say that something is against christian values because the atheists start trolling. But ok, let use the logic then, what do your logic says you? Is it ok to catch the old man?

I am not an athiest if you are referring to me.



Is it ok to catch the old man?

elaborate

Homo Sapiens - To retarded for their own best.

Im ashamed to be a human when contemplating about how we handle our species, our fellow species on earth, and earth itself.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9gHuAwxwAs
(Edit; Start at 3 min blank.)


Tho, I rather enjoy observing our way of living.  ::)

-Grg

I agree

logic dictates that we are are at the mercy of a minority that is looking after their own interests, they have the control.

is it you or I or the masses who is going to rise to power and change the way it works, no.

The ones that want power obtain power and in most cases for their own interest.

Not for a second should anyone trust the person next to them as their own interest will always come first.

Yes there are people doing good in the world but they usually do not want power.

Whatever social changes occur do so due to the benefit to the economy that drives the interest of the money lenders.

Do you think a motor car (one of the biggest money spinners in the economy) is always affordable even on low income for the benefit of the masses, no it is affordable to ensure that you get to work and contribute to the economy and continue to buy fuel.

Why is it a house for most people takes 30 years to pay off and has never decreased in affordability, it is to ensure that the interest is paid for as long as possible.

Other things keep getting cheaper but not the essentials (house, medical etc) to ensure the most profit to those that benefit.


 

power burns the shield of the soul, love repairs it. the more you hate the less you love and vice versa. I don't want to handle any living, but let it live in love, as such they will be in peace, in peace they can find harmony, in harmony knowledge and love are possible and so stop being obsessed by power to burns the shield of soul, but chose instead of building bridges toward first one another and restore the peace between Eve and Adam and flush some misconception... or rinse and repeat until exhausted. ::). btw it was a nice rant mymenace but the only essential is love :).

BOOM!

I like your clairvoyance!


@MitMos, Love won't sort how humans behave on earth.
In this case Greed > Love. Every day in the week.

Sad but true story.

-Grg

http://www.local10.com/news/judge-issues-temporary-ban-on-feeding-homeless-arrests-in-fort-lauderdale/30017354

agreed

If  they were all as bad as dank I would put them down like stray dogs......

This is good news to me. I just wish the article would have cited the judge's reasoning for the temporary ban.

I am not sure if this is a good idea or not. On one hand the numerous arrests have clearly not deterred this person from sharing/giving away his food to the homeless, however on the other hand it does disregard the rule of law as what he is doing is clearly against the law

If they want him to stop they have to put in some infrastructure that provides food   for the hungry and  homeless at the very least..... If not amenities as well

Murica turning into Africa?

That infrastructure already exists in the form of soup kitchens, shelters, food banks, and other organized charities.

The old dude chose to ignore that infrastructure and the applicable food safety laws.

The Free Shit Army uses the homeless as a weapon to threaten the middle class, and so insists on feeding them without regard for time/place/manner regulations.

Is he very wealthy or how can he afford to run this unlicensed charity?
Just slap him with a million dollar fine every week until he  is homeless as well and can join his friends in the park would be very easy solution to the problem for any forward thinking  judge  :)

No need to lock him up at all, just take all his assets and that's the end of it.......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/12/03/after-90-year-old-is-arrested-florida-judge-halts-law-that-restricts-feeding-the-homeless/

The law has been stayed while both sides "mediate."

The food safety laws is the whole point of the arrests. Although the homeless and hungry likely could care less about the food they are being served being prepared in a sanitary manor, the public should care as they are the ones who will end up paying for healthcare in the event that a homeless person ends up sick because of what they ate 

ive seen homeless people eating from garbage cans ........im not sure thats the issue because they do plenty of other stuff that would could make them sick
and medical bills are not taken into consideration
maybe turning public property into a soup kitchen attrcting even more homeless to congregate there is part of the issue
and as already mentioned ,after they eat,they will shit wherever etc and nobody will clean it up

if there was adequate charity soup mkitchens in place ,why would they bother eating this guys food

is it so delicious they cant resist  :) or is there a shortfall in whats needed and whats actually available ?

This is not likely the issue either.
If people eat, they shit, and someone (possibly themselves) clean up.
if people don't eat, they die, and someone (not themselves) clean up.

There are already public restrooms on that beach.

The violation is a food safety ordinance, go figure.  Without the city licence, the homeless would only be able to sue this 90 year old guy that has been feeding them for the last 25 years before the new ordinance.  If they suddenly got sick on his food (and not the stuff they pulled from the garbage) they wouldn't also be able to sue the city.
The city wants to also be responsible.
The license is easy to get, but it can also be denied.  This seems to be one of those "principle" disputes.  There aren't really any practical concerns, just a power struggle between a long time resident and his city.

Emergency rooms cannot deny anyone medical care, so the taxpayers are on the hook when indigents get food poisoning.

Because old people in Florida do not wish to spend their final Golden Years living among human excrement, they will have to pay to clean up the used food left in the park and surrounding lawns/streets/sidewalks.

The idea that the 90 y/o or his pet homeless are going to clean up their own mess is laughable, wishful/magical thinking.  The park/beach is intended for the enjoyment of the general population, not a helpless subset of addicts and crazies.  When Little Sally comes to visit Grandma and they go to the park she doesn't need to see a junkie, with a needle sticking out of his arm and rolling around in his own filth, taking up a stall in the public restroom.

The park/beach isn't the only place they can eat, so your deadly dilemma is completely false and only for cheap emotional effect.

As has been mentioned repeatedly, they are welcome to eat at appropriate venues with proper food handling, plumbing, etc.

When we arrive in Libertopia and all public property is privatized, these problems will disappear.  Until then we must accept the quasi-legitimacy of local communities acting in lieu of proper rational actors to prevent externalities, or else suffer the tragedy of the commons.

Now I'm confused.  Is he supplying free heroin or free food?

Where your whole diatribe falls flat, is that he can get a license easily and cheaply to do exactly the same thing.  The mythical old people and sally aren't stopping him at all.  He just doesn't want to get the license because he doesn't believe that he has to since was doing this in that same place when the guy that invented the license was a toddler.

The "community" isn't against the activity.  There is no lack of plumbing or facilities.  The food handling is fine too.  What is missing is the license.

I suspect that he will learn that he has to either stop or get the license, but that nothing at all will change once he does.  No fewer people will shit or get sick, no externalities will change.  Just a license whose cost is far less than the expense to process it in this case.


Though I agree with your principles, those aren't the main inflection points in this conflict.  The city wants him distributing food there and then, but just wants to control and organize it.  For example, with licensing they can arrange for others to do so on other days when he isn't there.

I'm glad to hear the park and neighborhood are willing and able to accommodate the charity.

The earlier consensus was that the functional purpose of the license was to control where/when feedings occur.

In this case maybe that's not a problem, but you don't get grandfathered in to safety regs.

"I've never had to register my car with any newfangled DMV before, why should I start now?"  -Grandpa Simpson

Why we just don't kill all the bums? =)

Some public parks will let just anyone host their child's birthday party there and distribute food to kids (oh think of the children!), some of it might even be a cake with dangerous flaming things on top.
Other parks require signups, maybe in this part of Florida such a birthday party requires a license.
In some New York areas you can get arrested for serving a too-large soda, or just pouring any into a very large cup, even if you have such a license.

All these places can make up their own rules, and you can go to places that have rules that you like and avoid the ones you don't.
It is wrong to say they can't make such a rule.  It is not wrong to laugh at them for making it.
Chewing Gum and connecting to open WiFi is illegal in Singapore
Handling Salmon in a Suspicious way is illegal in UK (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/62/section/32)
But gum chewers are welcome in London and strange salmon are OK in Singapore (so long as they don't chew gum).

There are also some grandfather clauses, and yes even for some auto safety regulations.  Possibly most famously, seat belt laws don't apply to old cars, (now about 50 year old cars are exempt, early 1960s before they were first required).
They possibly could have considered grandfathering this guy in, he is sort of an institution there, he has been doing it so long.

If he gets a license then he will have had to receive some kind of instruction as to handle food properly/safely and would be subject to inspections (monitoring) by the local government agency responsible for monitoring food safety. If he does not have a license then such local government agency will not know to monitor him

You probably didn't know this, and are just here to take snipe shots for mo gubberming, but his organization teaches those classes for food safety.
"In addition to feeding the homeless, Love Thy Neighbor operates a culinary training program that Abbott says has helped more than 400 people learn food service skills."

But yeah, more monitoring.  Maybe the "monitors" will learn something about food safety from the guy that was doing it for more than the last 20 years without incident.

In this case food handling has not been a problem, but you don't get grandfathered in to safety regs.

Think of the outrage if Grandpa was grandfathered in, and then his flock of pet homeless got food poisoning.

It is to his benefit to have the license for legal CYA reasons, if nothing else.

"I've never had to register my Ford Model A with any newfangled DMV before, why should I start now?"  -Grandpa Simpson

While old car owners cannot reasonably be expected to retrofit them with seatbelts, they certainly must register with the DMV and have a drivers license.

Yes, even Grandpa Simpson needs to renew his DL once a decade, just to make sure he's not a hazard to others.

All of your points about how silly local regulations are easily avoided by movement are will taken.

The people who don't understand the purpose and value of local control and federalism have a lot of reading to do!   :)

My concern with the federalism argument is where is the line between local autonomy and the unjust infringement of freedom? The fact that a law or ordinance has wide-spread local support doesn't make it just. It's just a smaller group of people restricting freedom.

Even if he teaches food safety, it does not mean that he practices it. I have encountered a lot of bad teachers throughout my education (but lets assume that he is a good teacher).

One of the most important things about food safety is the importance of inspections and following procedure. If he does not have a license then he cannot be inspected.

There is no inhibition on inspection without a license.  Where do these fantasies come from?  All they have to do is show up.  The paper grants no magic powers of sight and smell.

True, however how would the inspectors know to inspect a food establishment without a license?

The inspectors know about the food establishment because they have a license, they do not use other sources to find where food establishments are

think this is disgsting isn't it good morals to help others? What was he charged for?

The charge is a city ordinance violation for unlicensed food distribution in public.