Illegal to play live music in Indiana without a permit from IN Homeland Security

[Kirk Freeman]

Why? Why do I have that duty

Because your fellow citizens, the courts and your insurance company say that you do.

Do I have a duty to provide them with armed guards?

Depends, but potentially.

Do I have a duty to offer breast cancer screening at the door? Do I have a duty to make sure they have their government mandated vaccines on the way in? Do I have a duty to make sure they are eating a healthy, balanced diet based on the government food pyramid?

Outside of possibly California, no, unless Obamacare is implemented.

Are you incapable of checking for an acceptable number of fire doors before you attend a live concert?

No, but if I invite the public into my property then I have the duty to ensure that the fire code is complied with.

State fire code=perfectly consitutional and no problem; state fire code being used arbitrarily=problem.

 

[steveh_131]

Because your fellow citizens, the courts and your insurance company say that you do.

And what about you? What do you say? Is your safety my responsibility?

No, but if I invite the public into my property then I have the duty to ensure that the fire code is complied with.

Why? Shouldn't those in attendance take responsibility for their own safety? What happened to individual responsibility? I thought we believe in that, here on INGO.

Scared of guns? Don't go to the shooting range. Scared of live music? Don't go to a bar that has live music.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why?

I just told you but I can tell you again.

Because your fellow citizens, the courts and your insurance company say that you do.

The duty of care depends on one's status as a guest, an invitee, a trespasser, inter alia.

 

[steveh_131]

I just told you but I can tell you again.

Because your fellow citizens, the courts and your insurance company say that you do.

The duty of care depends on one's status as a guest, an invitee, a trespasser, inter alia.

You're telling me what the law says. I understand that. You know that I understand that, and you know that this is not what I am asking.

Do you agree with the law in this regard? Should I be held responsible for your safety any time you are on my property? Are you not individually responsible for ensuring your own safety?

 

[hornadylnl]

You're telling me what the law says. I understand that. You know that I understand that, and you know that this is not what I am asking.

Do you agree with the law in this regard? Should I be held responsible for your safety any time you are on my property? Are you not individually responsible for ensuring your own safety?

Kirk is making the perfect argument for land owners to not let others hunt, shoot or do anything on their property.

 

[steveh_131]

Kirk is making the perfect argument for land owners to not let others hunt, shoot or do anything on their property.

Legislating the management of risk to others is exactly what has landed us in this nanny state paradise. It will cost us our gun rights sooner or later. Hope it was worth it.

 

[onetwoonetwo]

you guys should read the entire back of a current ticket stub. ha! as soon as you buy a ticket you wave all your rights.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You're telling me what the law says. I understand that.

You do but apparently others do not. They are treating the retired cop/firefighter Fire Marshal as Himmler.

It is necessary (always it seems) to review the rule of law so we do not all run down the road to the rule of the mob. The Constitution permits States to do this. How it is done is important as what is done.

Should I be held responsible for your safety any time you are on my property

You say you understand yet you continue to ask the questions you say you do not need to ask.

It depends on under what circumstances under which one is on another's property. What is owed the customer is different that what is owed the burglar.

Kirk is making the perfect argument for land owners to not let others hunt, shoot or do anything on their property.

Always a concern, depends on one's legal duty to others. Have we not seen on INGO what happens when people think they can do whatever they want on their land--tragedy after tragedy.

Does the neighborhood watchman owe a duty to anyone or can he simply chase after and shoot whoever he wants as it is his property?

 

[steveh_131]

Kirk, you are a master at muddling the issues.

Let's set aside the legalities of the matter and discuss this on a philosophical level.

I allow you on to my property. What manner of security do I now 'owe' you? Obviously, you think that I 'owe' you some pretty extreme fire safety measures. What else? Flood safety? Do I need to have life rafts available? What about tornado safety? Do I need to have a cellar? Am I required to offer healthy food? What if it's high fat? Is that ok? Or do we need some government regulations on this as well?

This entire mindset is ridiculous, and if we don't get rid of it we are going to continue sliding down the path to tyranny. It is your responsibility, and yours alone, to manage the risk that you expose yourself to. The government is historically inept at managing risk. It is both ineffective and tyrannical when it attempts to do so.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I allow you on to my property.

Under what cirumstances? I am an invitee? I am a licensee?

What manner of security do I now 'owe' you

Depends on what happens.

Certainly there is a duty of security, see e.g. Lia Chau, but it depends on foreseeability.

Obviously, you think that I 'owe' you some pretty extreme fire safety measures

Does not have to be extreme. But a business owner does have a duty not to Great White his patrons.

Floods, tornados, cellars? Depends on, 1) what the statute requires, 2) what your insurance requires, 3) what is reasonably foreseeable.

This entire mindset is ridiculous, and if we don't get rid of it we are going to continue sliding down the path to tyranny

Calling a fire code tyranny is ridiculous.

There are legitimate exercises of state police power under the Constitution. This is one of them. However, the fire code can be amended, develoved, or applied unevenly and thus the action is void.

 

[steveh_131]

This very thread is proof that I am right about this. The 'fire code' is now being used to decide who can play musical instruments on their own property. That's not tyranny? After a few more steps down the road, even a collectivist like you might recognize it for what it is.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

This entire mindset is ridiculous, and if we don't get rid of it we are going to continue sliding down the path to tyranny. It is your responsibility, and yours alone, to manage the risk that you expose yourself to. The government is historically inept at managing risk. It is both ineffective and tyrannical when it attempts to do so.

I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility. I think laws that require adults to wear seatbelts or to wear a helmet on a motorcycle are infringements of personal freedom to choose. The fact that I couldn't stand on the sidewalk and smoke a cigarette on the BSU campus is too ludicrous to believe. I completely agree that the mindset behind those laws is ridiculous, but I think that it's equally ridiculous to imagine that government has no place to manage any such risk. You and I have both grown up enjoying the fact that when we eat food that was prepared at a restaurant, or processed and packaged in some distant factory, we could be reasonably sure that it wouldn't kill us or make us sick.

I'm not a fan of over-restriction, big government, and lots of other things, but I also know that human nature can't be changed by a good PR campaign. It's an inexorable force and no amount of talking, or blogging can change it.

 

[steveh_131]

You and I have both grown up enjoying the fact that when we eat food that was prepared at a restaurant, or processed and packaged in some distant factory, we could be reasonably sure that it wouldn't kill us or make us sick.

This is exactly the problem. Here we are, counting on the government to keep us alive instead of using consumer agencies and our actual brains to keep ourselves safe. We have been conditioned this way, and now we are far too cowardly to even imagine life without the government babysitting us.

And what do we actually get, for the countless fortunes and liberties squandered in this pursuit of security?

Food poisoning.

 

[hornadylnl]

You guys continue to reaffirm why I don't allow hunters or host INGO shoots on my property. And hunters and shooters wonder why they can't find private land to use.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This very thread is proof that I am right about this.

It is not. It is just more hyperbolic hysteria by those who are playing to those who have legitimate concerns over the scope of government.

Not every act of government is unconstitutional. This is constitutional per se, however as applied may be big problems.

This is nothing more than what the Left does, confuse policy for the Constitution but Libertarians do it in a similar bizarro fashion. "I want the L. Neil Smith novel to be real therefore the Constitution says X."

This is a replacement of the rule of law for the rule of man from the Right side of the spectrum.

The 'fire code' is now being used to decide who can play musical instruments on their own property.

It is not.

That's not tyranny?

It is not.

Again per se, nothing wrong; as applied may be big problems. I wish the tavern owner well in his fight to correct any problems.

 

[steveh_131]

This is nothing more than what the Left does, confuse policy for the Constitution but Libertarians do it in a similar bizarro fashion. "I want the L. Neil Smith novel to be real therefore the Constitution says X."

What are you talking about, Kirk? I haven't once mentioned the constitution. I'm talking about liberty.

I realize that is a confusing and foreign topic for you, but try to stay on track here.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This is good.

Abstract liberty exercised in a vauum vs. constitutionally permitted infringments.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What are you talking about, Kirk? I haven't once mentioned the constitution. I'm talking about liberty.

Oh, I understand, I read the book where time travel allowed George Washington to be assassinated. I understand your point of view.

However, I am talking about the Constitution and the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Man.

 

[rambone]

To call a fire code "tyranny" or "statism" is a little overbroad.

However, they are not some mark of tyranny.

Calling a fire code tyranny is ridiculous.

Heh. Arresting people for their grass length isn't tyranny either. I remember.

I swear guys, I'm not oppressing you. Just follow my commands and I won't throw you in a cage. This is not tyranny.

Maybe its not us you are trying to convince.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Arresting people for their grass length isn't tyranny either. I remember.

Geez, not again.

Fining people for ordinance violation pursuant to the rule of law is not tyranny.

Driving over in your Hanomag Sdkzf251 and shooting them is tyranny.

You want the rule of man; I want the rule of law. I understand, we all get it.