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

[level.eleven]

If the Utopians just wanted to sit in their bedrooms in the father's house, wear their leather jackets and ***** about "the man" while painting their fingernails black and listening to Depche Mode, then I don't have a any problem. But they deliberately distort the rule of law and the history of property law into some L. Neil Smith fantasy, then they will be corrected.

END SCENE.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

END SCENE

Permission to do jazz hands AND spirit fingers.

 

[rambone]

When your much older: "Man, if those kids next door don't turn down that @%#&^% music, I'm calling the cops"

People with that mentality are why this country looks the way it does.

And besides, nowadays we call Homeland Security.

If the Utopians just wanted to sit in their bedrooms in the father's house, wear their leather jackets and ***** about "the man" while painting their fingernails black and listening to Depche Mode, then I don't have a any problem.

How gracious of you. Glad you approve. For once.

 

[steveh_131]

Oh, the irony. We are on a board about gun rights. Yet, the few of us who want to care for our own security instead of our government babysitters are being mocked.

Hypocrisy is thick in this one. Your reliance on the nanny state will be our ruin. Your gun rights are next. Frankly, you deserve it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How gracious of you. Glad you approve. For once.

The rule of man that utopianism (Left or Right) produces is the true threat to liberty.

The world is; the world is not ought or should.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yet, the few of us who want to care for our own security instead of our government babysitters are being mocked.

You have a duty to others.

Paint all your nails black and mutter all you wish about your father if you wish but the world is that you have a duty to others and that includes your property.

 

[rambone]

You have a duty to others.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

 

[steveh_131]

You have a duty to others. Paint all your nails black and mutter all you wish about your father if you wish but the world is that you have a duty to others and that includes your property.

When I walk into a business establishment or into somebody's home, I consider my safety to be my responsibility. Why do you consider your safety to be everyone else's responsibility?

Like I've said several times now, if you don't feel that an establishment is up to your standards of fire safety, you have every right to avoid the establishment, don't you? Why is government regulation necessary? If I eat at McDonalds, I am free to inform myself that I am probably lowering my overall lifespan. Should I have the right to do so anyways? Should they have the right to serve food that is horrible for the human body?

This is nothing but a nanny state mentality, Kirk. You can insult me all you want with the black fingernail nonsense, or make assumptions about authors I had never heard of until you brought them up. It won't change the obvious reality that you love some nanny state. You love being babysat. You love having a big brother to go to when your neighbor isn't behaving the way you want him to.

 

[Cameramonkey]

When I walk into a business establishment or into somebody's home, I consider my safety to be my responsibility. Why do you consider your safety to be everyone else's responsibility?

Like I've said several times now, if you don't feel that an establishment is up to your standards of fire safety, you have every right to avoid the establishment, don't you? Why is government regulation necessary?

I'm with Kirk. the fire marshal is God here and the feds have overstepped their bounds. There is a reasonable amount of oversight the local safety nazis need to have to keep us safe. The feds have no business here.

The fire marshal sets max capacity and tries to insure safety as far as how many people can be there and that the fire doors arent blocked.

As far as being responsible for your own safety... sure, you paid your $25 to see Great White. What do you do when you are suddenly surrounded by WAAAAY too many people according to the "maximum occupancy" sign and you notice the fire doors are blocked. Leave for your own safety? What about your cash? Are you willing to walk away from it because of the potential danger and have to fight the promoter for a refund because they arent safe? Should you even HAVE to fight that battle?

I think the locals have it under control, and the feds need to step the F back and stop the money grab.

 

[steveh_131]

Yes. You leave. If the venue falsely advertised the number of people that would be in attendance, you have a legitimate claim to get your money back.

I get it. No one here wants to imagine a world without our government babysitters that make us feel safe.

Please consider the fact that human beings have survived on this planet for a very long time before fire Marshalls came around to keep us alive.

And please consider the fact that these babysitters are quite inept at keeping us safe, which is why most of us carry guns.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Yes. You leave. If the venue falsely advertised the number of people that would be in attendance, you have a legitimate claim to get your money back.

And good luck getting that cash back. I can pretty much guarantee the effort to get that $25 back is MUCH more than the actual $25 you MIGHT get. There WILL be considerable push back from the promoter; prove it was dangerous, that it was overcrowded, the doors were blocked, etc.; your word against theirs. I guarantee you will need to expend more effort than the ticket cost in effort to get your money back in this scenario.

There is a fine line here. Fire marshal approval is kosher IMHO, but Homeland inSecurity? They are overstepping their bounds and lining their pockets with REDUNDANT fees. The local fire marshal is quite competent and has the situation under control in most cases. If I were a FM, I'd be mad as hell.

 

[rambone]

I'm with Kirk. the fire marshal is God.... the local safety nazis...

 

[hornadylnl]

When I walk into a business establishment or into somebody's home, I consider my safety to be my responsibility. Why do you consider your safety to be everyone else's responsibility?

Like I've said several times now, if you don't feel that an establishment is up to your standards of fire safety, you have every right to avoid the establishment, don't you? Why is government regulation necessary? If I eat at McDonalds, I am free to inform myself that I am probably lowering my overall lifespan. Should I have the right to do so anyways? Should they have the right to serve food that is horrible for the human body?

This is nothing but a nanny state mentality, Kirk. You can insult me all you want with the black fingernail nonsense, or make assumptions about authors I had never heard of until you brought them up. It won't change the obvious reality that you love some nanny state. You love being babysat. You love having a big brother to go to when your neighbor isn't behaving the way you want him to.

I knew an old Viet Nam vet. He told a story of picking up a Viet Namese hooker. Only problem was once he got ready to do the deed, the hooker had more equipment than he bargained for. Said he went ahead and did it anyway because he'd already paid his money and didn't want to lose it.

I think brothels across the world need equipment inspectors so customers don't get the bait and switch. Apparently dignity isn't worth the few sheckles a Vietnamese hooker costs. Apparently our lives aren't worth losing $25 on a ticket.

 

[foszoe]

So we are all to decide for ourselves what a safe occupancy level is? How do we educate ourselves to make an informed decision? Being responsible for my own safety means keeping a constant count of the room at all times?

Personal responsibility. Is it some sort of ultimate reality we are striving for?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why do you consider your safety to be everyone else's responsibility?

I have been over and over this. I shall tell you again, because that is the rule of law. If you invite others into your property, especially if they are customers, you owe them a duty of care. And that is dependent on status and foreseeability, see Lai Chau if you want to know more.

This is nothing but a nanny state mentality, Kirk. You can insult me all you want with the black fingernail nonsense, or make assumptions about authors I had never heard of until you brought them up. It won't change the obvious reality that you love some nanny state. You love being babysat. You love having a big brother to go to when your neighbor isn't behaving the way you want him to.

It is the rule of law mentality.

Nowhere but in an L. Neil Smith novel do these inane absolute views of property rights exist. Only in fiction and on INGO can they survive.

You have only cited the Rule of Man, you, in your absolutist precatory view of property rights. Meye rye-its over all view of property can only come from The King/Tsar/Strongman.

 

[steveh_131]

So we are all to decide for ourselves what a safe occupancy level is? How do we educate ourselves to make an informed decision? Being responsible for my own safety means keeping a constant count of the room at all times?

Here on INGO, we call it situational awareness.

I have a newsflash for you. If you are counting on the government to keep you safe, you are a fool.

I have been over and over this. I shall tell you again, because that is the rule of law. If you invite others into your property, especially if they are customers, you owe them a duty of care. And that is dependent on status and foreseeability, see Lai Chau if you want to know more.

It is the rule of law mentality.

Please define this 'rule of law' so that this debate can continue. My suggestion of holding people accountable for damage falls under every definition of 'rule of law' that I can find. I am not advocating anarchy. Repeating the same mindless phrase over and over again will not win you this argument.

By what moral standard do I 'owe a duty of care'? Why is this your standard? Yes, I know, this is the legal reality now, but why is this superior to my suggestion?

Nowhere but in an L. Neil Smith novel do these inane absolute views of property rights exist. Only in fiction and on INGO can they survive.

You have only cited the Rule of Man, you, in your absolutist precatory view of property rights. Meye rye-its over all view of property can only come from The King/Tsar/Strongman.

Again, 'rule of man'? I'm trying to understand this argument.

'Rule of man' means (to you) that there are no set standards, but punishments are handed out at the whim of a person or a group of people?

Let's look at a new term. "Straw man". I've not advocated this 'rule of man'. I'm arguing that we change the set standards, not that we get rid of all set standards.

I have not read any L. Neil Smith books, so there's not much point in continuing to bring him up.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Please consider the fact that human beings have survived on this planet for a very long time before fire Marshalls came around to keep us alive.

And please consider the fact that these babysitters are quite inept at keeping us safe, which is why most of us carry guns.

Have you even an inkling of the thousand ways that these babysitters have helped to ensure your life, good health, and safety? Do you really not realize how fortunate you are to have been born and to live in this country with better medical care, cleaner water, cleaner air, safer buildings, safer food, safer roads, etc, etc, on and on than almost anywhere else on earth? Do you even have a clue what kind of nasty crap that industries would be venting to the air, discharging into the water, or burying in the ground if there was no oversight? Would you ever eat at a restaurant, or out of a can if there was no oversight?

And you seem to honestly think that this way of doing things, that has very well been responsible for saving you from harm a hundred times over, is not only invalid, but ineffective, since you know that it hasn't been 100% successful.

I guess we should all wish to be so intrepid and brave as to feel that we don't need no stinking regulations.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I have a newsflash for you. If you are counting on the government to keep you safe, you are a fool.

You have lived under government protection ALL you life. You're counting on it with every meal that you eat, every drop of water that you drink, every breath of air that you breath.

 

[steveh_131]

Have you even an inkling of the thousand ways that these babysitters have helped to ensure your life, good health, and safety? Do you really not realize how fortunate you are to have been born and to live in this country with better medical care, cleaner water, cleaner air, safer buildings, safer food, safer roads, etc, etc, on and on than almost anywhere else on earth? Do you even have a clue what kind of nasty crap that industries would be venting to the air, discharging into the water, or burying in the ground if there was no oversight? Would you ever eat at a restaurant, or out of a can if there was no oversight?

You think that none of these things could exist in a free market?

Several of them are legitimate property rights issues that should still be handled by the government. Polluting the air and water is a property rights issue, although I think that civil courts would be sufficient for much of it.

Building safe buildings, cooking safe food, etc. could all be handled by the free market and civil courts. Yes, we would have to change our way of looking at things. We would have to stop counting on a government certificate to tell us that food is safe. There are civilian organizations that do this as well, and companies would strive to achieve these ratings just as they would FDA ratings if the free market was left to run its course.

Have you ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome? Government regulation is not what made our nation great. The fact that you think it is responsible for all of the good things that we have is quite troubling.

 

[foszoe]

Here on INGO, we call it situational awareness.

I have a newsflash for you. If you are counting on the government to keep you safe, you are a fool.

You answer none of my questions substantively, provide a newsflash thats not a news flash and then draw a conclusion on my mental capacity IF I commit your qualifying action. You just aren't that convincing.