Arrested for feeding homeless people

[dank]

I do on occasion go to a drive thru fast food place that is in a complex with a gas station, a large retailer, etc. Homeless people are always hanging out near one specific entrance/exit location in the complex. So, if I feel like it....I order my meal x2 and when I'm leaving give 1 away to of whichever homeless person happens to be there that day. It's not a daily, scheduled or regular thing. I can spend my money how I wish and as far as I know, it's not illegal in Florida to hand a person a bag of food whether you know them or not.

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

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/

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

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.

[iCEBREAKER]

Shouting would encroach on private property.  

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.

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).   

[Eisenhower34]

I do on occasion go to a drive thru fast food place that is in a complex with a gas station, a large retailer, etc. Homeless people are always hanging out near one specific entrance/exit location in the complex. So, if I feel like it....I order my meal x2 and when I'm leaving give 1 away to of whichever homeless person happens to be there that day. It's not a daily, scheduled or regular thing. I can spend my money how I wish and as far as I know, it's not illegal in Florida to hand a person a bag of food whether you know them or not.

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

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/

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

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.

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

[iCEBREAKER]

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!

[NewLiberty]

Shouting would encroach on private property.  

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.

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).  

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.

[iCEBREAKER]

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*]

[steelhouse]

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.

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.

[steelhouse]

lnerable" 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.

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.

[NewLiberty]

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*]

Yep.

But help me with this disambiguating this one:  FSA?

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

[iCEBREAKER]

help me with this disambiguating this one:  FSA?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FSA

Free Shit Army. Refers to the truly amazing number of people who will show up out of nowhere if something is being given away for free.

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:

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 [and take out massive student loans].  To scare you to pay your property taxes.  

[jaysabi]

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.

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.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

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!   

[jaysabi]

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.

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!  

(Does that mean Florida?)

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

I am against any Federal regulations on sandwich distribution.  I support the right of individuals to form communities that do regulate sandwich distribution if they so please.

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.

[NewLiberty]

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.

[jaysabi]

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"

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.)

[awesome31312]

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

[iCEBREAKER]

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!   

[NewLiberty]

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"

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.)

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.

[dank]

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!   

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

[jaysabi]

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"

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.)

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.

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.