A Sea Of Red

at least not where people can see them. So saith Seattle.

http://mynorthwest.com/11/2178586/Missi ... 6c.twitter

This is why liberals hate charity. Because if private citizens do it, who needs the government?

I gave a homeless guy what was left of my Starbucks coffee in Vegas. He asked for it, so I figured why not...would rather do that than give money directly.

David Takami with the Seattle Human Services Department said the city does not allow groups of people to feed the homeless outdoors without approval.

"This has happened in the past where there are a lot of meals served in a short period of time on the same day," he said. "It's a little chaotic and it can also lead to wasted food."

Takami said those wishing to feed the homeless need to coordinate with the Operation: Sack Lunch program, which serves up to 300 people a day at the city's outdoor meal site, located under the I-5 bridge at 6th Avenue and Columbia Street.

By requiring that all food be served at the site, Takami said the city can control the nutritional value of what the homeless eat and can prevent litter from being left behind at parks after meals.

He said the controlled environment is also safer for volunteers.

This is completely reasonable. And the city is not telling them they cannot do it at all, just do so within the guidelines, which have been set for safety reasons.

Either the service group is upset because they have to alter their three-year routine, or they're making this out to be an offense for the attention. Either way, in the spirit of the work tone done, adjust and keep serving.

Okay, I guess you're perfectly fine with city governments infringing on your rights to do as you wish as a private citizen, without hurting others. Well, that sort of attitude is how we got to where we are today.

Do you honestly think George Washington would have been okay with only watering his plants on a B day?

On what right is the city infringing? It's not my right to do whatever I please, whenever I please. The city isn't telling them they cannot do this, it's simply insisting they abide by a set of guidelines as they do it. And the guidelines are in place for the safety of all.

What's the problem?

I thought libertarians were all for government at the local level. Why would you have a problem with elected representatives in Seattle making rules for Seattle residents?

LUconn wrote:I thought libertarians were all for government at the local level. Why would you have a problem with elected representatives in Seattle making rules for Seattle residents?

Good question. We do believe in smaller, and properly divided forms of government, however, the city is directly interfering with voluntary commerce between individuals. In other words, the city will fine those who are simply trying to benefit their fellow man. Why is this? Because city leaders would rather have these individuals be a part of their own government institutions, rather than letting people choose to help them, or not.

For example, a city may say, you cannot park a car here, because it obstructs a view of an intersection, or lies in front of someone's driveway. But a city should not be allowed to violate natural rights of its own citizens. This what Seattle is restricting the right of private charities to do. This is statism.

So, what's your take on prostitution?

Seattle is preserving the safety of its citizens, which is their right, and especially their RESPONSIBILITY to do. They aren't disallowing this organization from doing what it does within its own private facility. They are simply stating that for safety reasons, the service group is not permitted to do so on government property, apart from the city's own procedure for doing so.

If any of the organization's workers were harmed, would you not believe they had a right to sue the city? The city is held liable for the safety of its citizens, ESPECIALLY on government property. And that is what they're addressing: liability.

adam42381 wrote:So, what's your take on prostitution?

I usually wait for a Groupon or LivingSocial deal

adam42381 wrote:So, what's your take on prostitution?

Well, since prostitution laws have made the the business of prostitution go away completely... or actually...

But I realize your comment was to try to stir up a hornet's nest.

I thought it was a legitimate question since you mentioned the government interfering with voluntary commerce between individuals.

adam42381 wrote:So, what's your take on prostitution?

Or pornography, marijuana, hard drugs...

jbock13 wrote:

adam42381 wrote:So, what's your take on prostitution?

Well, since prostitution laws have made the the business of prostitution go away completely... or actually...

But I realize your comment was to try to stir up a hornet's nest.

Prostitution has gone away completely? Wow, you are really naive if you think that...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cynthia-k ... 14162.html

lynchburgwildcats wrote:

adam42381 wrote:So, what's your take on prostitution?

Or pornography, marijuana, hard drugs...

Porn's illegal? Who knew?

adam42381 wrote:

lynchburgwildcats wrote:

adam42381 wrote:So, what's your take on prostitution?

Or pornography, marijuana, hard drugs...

Porn's illegal? Who knew?

Porn can only legally be filmed in California. Ironically, it is not legal in Nevada even though it's basically prostitution on film...

lynchburgwildcats wrote:

jbock13 wrote:

adam42381 wrote:So, what's your take on prostitution?

Well, since prostitution laws have made the the business of prostitution go away completely... or actually...

But I realize your comment was to try to stir up a hornet's nest.

Prostitution has gone away completely? Wow, you are really naive if you think that...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cynthia-k ... 14162.html

Key words were, or, actually. I was being sarcastic.

dang liberals always ruining everything

if hobos know they are going to get free meals at the park, they will be at the park. when i take my kids to the park i prefer it to not be inundated with hobos. there are probably plenty of ridiculous ordinances in quite possibly the stupidest most overrated cities in America but this isn't that awful.

lynchburgwildcats wrote: Porn can only legally be filmed in California. Ironically, it is not legal in Nevada even though it's basically prostitution on film...

So is it legal to act in porn if you're not in California, i.e. the only law breaker is the one filiming it?

ATrain wrote:

lynchburgwildcats wrote: Porn can only legally be filmed in California. Ironically, it is not legal in Nevada even though it's basically prostitution on film...

So is it legal to act in porn if you're not in California, i.e. the only law breaker is the one filiming it?

That I do not know. One would probably be guilty for aiding and abetting a crime though

lynchburgwildcats wrote:

ATrain wrote:

lynchburgwildcats wrote: Porn can only legally be filmed in California. Ironically, it is not legal in Nevada even though it's basically prostitution on film...

So is it legal to act in porn if you're not in California, i.e. the only law breaker is the one filiming it?

That I do not know. One would probably be guilty for aiding and bedding a crime though

FIFY

RubberMallet wrote:if hobos know they are going to get free meals at the park, they will be at the park. when i take my kids to the park i prefer it to not be inundated with hobos. there are probably plenty of ridiculous ordinances in quite possibly the stupidest most overrated cities in America but this isn't that awful.

No way! The liberals are ruining America with these crazy laws! How dare they!!!!!!

RubberMallet wrote:if hobos know they are going to get free meals at the park, they will be at the park. when i take my kids to the park i prefer it to not be inundated with hobos. there are probably plenty of ridiculous ordinances in quite possibly the stupidest most overrated cities in America but this isn't that awful.

There's the biblical compassion I expect out of FlameFans.