Topic: Arrested for feeding homeless people - page 4. (Read 8330 times)

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.

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*]

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.

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!

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

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).   

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.

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.

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

Freedom is slavery. War is (Nobel) Peace.

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.   

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.

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.