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

[hornadylnl]

Money = control civilian or gov't. Not sure how to substantiate you claim. Maybe you can.

If a civilian entity were in charge of code enforcement, what teeth would that entity have if I call them to complain about my neighbors 70's Berlinetta on blocks in his front yard?

People want the government in charge of code enforcement so that they can control the property of others.

It doesn't take a village to raise a child but it does to maintain property.

 

[foszoe]

The free market can handle all of this. There are already civilian organizations that inspect and certify safety and quality. In the absence of government interference, manufacturers would strive to achieve these and gain more profit potential in doing so.

Companies attempt to utilize safe practices because it is profitable for them to do so. Right now, potential fines are what make it profitable. Instead, let's use the free market to make it profitable.

How would a free market handle it?

How would a free market make it profitable?

Who decides when XXX must be inspected and certified?

Who sets the standards that must be met for certification?

Can these standards vary from town to town? State to state?

 

[foszoe]

If a civilian entity were in charge of code enforcement, what teeth would that entity have if I call them to complain about my neighbors 70's Berlinetta on blocks in his front yard?

People want the government in charge of code enforcement so that they can control the property of others.

It doesn't take a village to raise a child but it does to maintain property.

I guess we disagree, but I am malleable.

In this thread, aside from the meandering, is a goal. A building that is safe.

That's what people want and thats why they want the gov't in charge of code enforcement. Gov't is viewed, right or wrong, as being a non biased enforcer, based in some part on the belief that gov't should protect the rights of the minority from infringement by the majority (or those with more capital in this case to "buy off or out" of something)

The alternative is to let the free market provide an avenue to declare the building as safe.

The safe building is the goal. Convincing the public that the free market can do so is necessary.

I come from coal country. Coal companies operating in a "free market" outside of gov't regulation did many things that in the very least were questionable. Convincing miners that coal companies would have their best interests at heart would be difficult.

That's why I have difficulty following the willingness to let gov't regulate some things as equal to being ready to surrender gun rights which is, I believe, a 2A right.

 

[steveh_131]

How would a free market handle it?

How would a free market make it profitable?

Who decides when XXX must be inspected and certified?

Who sets the standards that must be met for certification?

Can these standards vary from town to town? State to state?

There is a demand for safety. This thread is evidence of that. Why is our first instinct to ask the government to meet this demand?

These standards are already required by every insurance company. Why not let the insurance companies hire out inspections and standards? They already do. And since they have some skin in the game, they do a darn sight better than the government.

Very few things are necessarily to be done by government force. Civil and criminal liability make it unprofitable to be irresponsible. Government red tape is intrusive and ineffective, and offers a placebo that keeps away more effective ways to do these things.

 

[rambone]

Mike Martin explains more about his case and the infractions. He says that he has been inspected by the Fire Marshal and complied with the code. What he is being accused of is not having a separate permit for live entertainment, being sold for $100.00/year. While we debate the merits of fire codes, he is fighting the issue of live entertainment permits.

He says that this is being enforced by the IN-DHS, but is mandated to the states by the US-DHS. In this way, the Feds can control local businesses by proxy. Without purchasing this permit, it is illegal for any commercial property (indoor and outdoor) in the state (perhaps all states) to play live music. He says the law was enacted in 2007.

Folly Moon is a 48-seat hamburger joint, he says. He wants to bring his own band into his own restaurant and play his own songs. I support this guy.

[video=youtube;ov0qGfFZlSE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov0qGfFZlSE[/video]

 

[foszoe]

Mike Martin explains more about his case and the infractions. He says that he has been inspected by the Fire Marshal and complied with the code. What he is being accused of is not having a separate permit for live entertainment, being sold for $100.00/year. While we debate the merits of fire codes, he is fighting the issue of live entertainment permits.

He says that this is being enforced by the IN-DHS, but is mandated to the states by the US-DHS. In this way, the Feds can control local businesses by proxy.

Yes. I agree, this part is silly. I think he is doing the right thing and hopefully, based on the merits of the case, this permit thing is abolished.

I know when I had my tour of the IDHS, one of the items I pressed them on more than once was, "So you can take no actions in the state unless assistance is requested at by the County EMA?" The tour director, kept insisting that was the case, although they are under the direct authority of the governor and can, if he designates a disaster area, begin to take action but they are not supposed to usurp the County authority. (Its been awhile so my memory may not be correct in all details). I did get an admission though that since grant money flows from Washington, they could be defacto acting under Federal guidance because Wash. desires may be legitimized by the locals to preserve the revenue stream.

 

[jbombelli]

There is a demand for safety. This thread is evidence of that. Why is our first instinct to ask the government to meet this demand?

These standards are already required by every insurance company. Why not let the insurance companies hire out inspections and standards? They already do. And since they have some skin in the game, they do a darn sight better than the government.

Very few things are necessarily to be done by government force. Civil and criminal liability make it unprofitable to be irresponsible. Government red tape is intrusive and ineffective, and offers a placebo that keeps away more effective ways to do these things.

Why do people want the government involved? Because historically the private sector has failed miserably at this. If an insurance company handles it, all they can do is not insure the facility. They can't prevent the owner from lying about his facility's safety, or keeping the doors open, or letting people in the door. Are you advocating that we give INSURANCE COMPANIES the power to close doors and put people out of business if they don't meet their requirements?

And again, as far as civil liability goes, it's hard to sue someone if both you and he are dead because the building caved in on you.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

We should all thank the federal government for ensuring that our food contains acceptable levels of chemicals, insect parts, and rat feces: Dale Gribble aka Rusty Shacklford

 

[steveh_131]

Why do people want the government involved? Because historically the private sector has failed miserably at this. If an insurance company handles it, all they can do is not insure the facility. They can't prevent the owner from lying about his facility's safety, or keeping the doors open, or letting people in the dooru advocating that we give INSURANCE COMPANIES the power to close doors and put people out of business if they don't meet their requirements?

And again, as far as civil liability goes, it's hard to sue someone if both you and he are dead because the building caved in on you.

What do you think the world would look like without government bureaucrats keeping us safe?

Buildings falling down. Everyone burning alive. Grunge bands in every Porta potty. Grass up to our shins. Dogs and cats living together. Mass pandemonium!

Businesses need insurance. Nobody wants to lose their business or die in it. Piddly fines and permits issued by uneducated busybodies are not the motivating factor here, or at least not a good one.

Until we decide to take responsibility for ourselves, the government will gladly step in. And crap like this will continue getting worse. In a few years when you have to apply for a permit to trim your pubes, remember this conversation. You asked for the government to save you.

 

[jbombelli]

Mike Martin explains more about his case and the infractions. He says that he has been inspected by the Fire Marshal and complied with the code. What he is being accused of is not having a separate permit for live entertainment, being sold for $100.00/year. While we debate the merits of fire codes, he is fighting the issue of live entertainment permits.

He says that this is being enforced by the IN-DHS, but is mandated to the states by the US-DHS. In this way, the Feds can control local businesses by proxy. Without purchasing this permit, it is illegal for any commercial property (indoor and outdoor) in the state (perhaps all states) to play live music. He says the law was enacted in 2007.

Folly Moon is a 48-seat hamburger joint, he says. He wants to bring his own band into his own restaurant and play his own songs. I support this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov0qGfFZlSE

I see absolutely NO NEED for any sort of live entertainment permit. That's not about code or anything more than the government wanting a cut. I agree with this guy, and disagree with the government.

What do you think the world would look like without government bureaucrats keeping us safe?

Buildings falling down. Everyone burning alive. Grunge bands in every Porta potty. Grass up to our shins. Dogs and cats living together. Mass pandemonium!

Businesses need insurance. Nobody wants to lose their business or die in it. Piddly fines and permits issued by uneducated busybodies are not the motivating factor here, or at least not a good one.

Until we decide to take responsibility for ourselves, the government will gladly step in. And crap like this will continue getting worse. In a few years when you have to apply for a permit to trim your pubes, remember this conversation. You asked for the government to save you.

And again, historically private enterprise has done miserably at this. When you find your utopia where people are more concerned with safety than they are making a buck, let me know. I'll move there.

Nobody WANTS to lose their business or die in it, but LOTS of people gamble on exactly that, every single day. And again, if the private sector always focused on safety instead of profit, there would be no OSHA, no building inspections, no fire inspections, no codes to have to meet... these all came about specifically as a result of people being unsafe. To pretend that people will run safe businesses if left to their own devices is folly.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Shortly after 911, during the initial knee-jerk, backlash period, one of the many things instituted by DHS was to require heavy security at drinking water plants. I first noticed it at the one in Muncie, and I later saw the same thing in other cities.

They installed concrete barriers around the perimeter fence all the way around every drinking water treatment facility of any size. And they controlled access at the open street entrances. I guess they were expecting terrorists to contaminate the water supply with a truckload of cyanide or something. Never mind that it would be much less trouble and much more stealthy (according to my friend the water guy) to rent a house and hook up an inexpensive set-up that would inject whatever you wanted into the system. Or, forget about someone just climbing over the fence and the barrier some night and passing the poison over in manageable parcels.

Now, I've seen at least one facility that has removed the barriers, and my friend said that they are no longer required to keep them. He said that his facility can't find someone that will be willing to go to the trouble and expense of taking them. So, what, now there's no more danger?

I can only imagine how much money (Federal DHS Grants?) that was spent to do little more than to allow drinking water facilities to be more readily identified, and make their grounds harder to mow.

 

[foszoe]

What do you think the world would look like without government bureaucrats keeping us safe?

Businesses need insurance. Nobody wants to lose their business or die in it.

I will leave the hypobole parts out and ask,

why do businesses NEED insurance?

Should a business NEED insurance?

Is your answer above your response? It seems incomplete. Would you disagree that some businesses, for example those somewhat isolated by geographical factors, may be willing to risk some collateral damage?

 

[steveh_131]

Let me clarify.

There will be no utopia. I am aware of that. There are tradeoffs to either approach. So it really comes down to what you value.

The government sucks at keeping me safe. It is expensive, intrusive and ineffective. I value my liberty more than the false sense of security that is offered by government bureaucrats.

Apparently, you guys value that tiny bit of security (real or not) more than your liberty.

 

[rambone]

And again, historically private enterprise has done miserably at this.

You're going to judge private enterprise by the worst examples, and ignore the majority who didn't have any catastrophes? Is that fair? Is that accurate?

Should rights be nullified because of the likelihood that they will be used responsibly? You know, like gun rights.

 

[jbombelli]

Let me clarify.

There will be no utopia. I am aware of that. There are tradeoffs to either approach. So it really comes down to what you value.

The government sucks at keeping me safe. It is expensive, intrusive and ineffective. I value my liberty more than the false sense of security that is offered by government bureaucrats.

Apparently, you guys value that tiny bit of security (real or not) more than your liberty.

I take it you've never worked in construction. I can tell you this with absolute certainty: If not for building codes and inspectors, half the buildings in this country would have fallen down by now. And even WITH the codes and inspectors, a lot of buildings out there are still not safe. I've played in several that I thought would fall apart due to the rumbling of the bass through the amps and speakers. I've played in buildings with such crappy electrical that I thought the place might burn down when we cranked up the amps. If owners of shoddy buildings were forced to put up big signs saying "THIS BUILDING IS UNSAFE! ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK!" you might have a point, but they currently don't put up such signs.

What do I value? I value freedom. I also value being able to walk into an establishment confident that the roof isn't going to fall in or burn down on me or my kids because the owner wanted to save a buck and hired an engineer who didn't know what he was doing, a project manager who cut every corner in the book, and even a few new ones, and a construction crew that only used every third bolt, an electrician who used wire that wasn't heavy enough, etc.

You're going to judge private enterprise by the worst examples, and ignore the majority who didn't have any catastrophes? Is that fair? Is that accurate?

Should rights be nullified because of the likelihood that they will be used responsibly? You know, like gun rights.

The worst examples are the ones that cause the law changes that everyone is stuck with. If EVERYONE worried more about safety than taking shortcuts to save a buck I'd agree. But they don't. You bring up gun rights? I'm sure you're bright enough to know why you can't walk into a place, like a bank for example, and point guns at people? That's a run right that you don't have. You may not be robbing the place, but that's a right you don't have.

There is certainly a trade-off in this, but some things just cannot be left to private enterprise because they're more worried about making money than they are anything else.

 

[hornadylnl]

I take it you've never worked in construction. I can tell you this with absolute certainty: If not for building codes and inspectors, half the buildings in this country would have fallen down by now. And even WITH the codes and inspectors, a lot of buildings out there are still not safe. I've played in several that I thought would fall apart due to the rumbling of the bass through the amps and speakers. I've played in buildings with such crappy electrical that I thought the place might burn down when we cranked up the amps. If owners of shoddy buildings were forced to put up big signs saying "THIS BUILDING IS UNSAFE! ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK!" you might have a point, but they currently don't put up such signs.

What do I value? I value freedom. I also value being able to walk into an establishment confident that the roof isn't going to fall in or burn down on me or my kids because the owner wanted to save a buck and hired an engineer who didn't know what he was doing, a project manager who cut every corner in the book, and even a few new ones, and a construction crew that only used every third bolt, an electrician who used wire that wasn't heavy enough, etc.




The worst examples are the ones that cause the law changes that everyone is stuck with. If EVERYONE worried more about safety than taking shortcuts to save a buck I'd agree. But they don't. You bring up gun rights? I'm sure you're bright enough to know why you can't walk into a place, like a bank for example, and point guns at people? That's a run right that you don't have. You may not be robbing the place, but that's a right you don't have.

There is certainly a trade-off in this, but some things just cannot be left to private enterprise because they're more worried about making money than they are anything else.

A building inspector has never set foot in my house. Should I run outside right now!?!

 

[steveh_131]

I take it you've never worked in construction.

As a matter of fact, I've been the engineer you're talking about. I've been on the design team. Schools, colleges, hospitals, pretty much everything. Had to read the ridiculous book of codes and all.

The codes were nonsense. Ridiculous busywork, in my opinion as an engineer. We had our own sets of standards that we followed. Not because of government regulations, but because we cared about our reputation when we went to bid on a job.

But since we're talking about standards, let's discuss some that often make sense in my experience. They were created by Underwriters Laboratories. You see, the founder of this company was hired by insurers at the age of 25, way back in the 1800's. He was hired to inspect buildings. Why? Because of essential government regulations? No. Because the insurers cared about liability. The free market provided this. You can probably find the logo on things all over your home.

A building inspector has never set foot in my house. Should I run outside right now!?!

You certainly should never be allowed to have guests in that house of horrors. You can forget about live music.

 

[hornadylnl]

As a matter of fact, I've been the engineer you're talking about. I've been on the design team. Schools, colleges, hospitals, pretty much everything. Had to read the ridiculous book of codes and all.

The codes were nonsense. Ridiculous busywork, in my opinion as an engineer. We had our own sets of standards that we followed. Not because of government regulations, but because we cared about our reputation when we went to bid on a job.

But since we're talking about standards, let's discuss some that often make sense in my experience. They were created by Underwriters Laboratories. You see, the founder of this company was hired by insurers at the age of 25, way back in the 1800's. He was hired to inspect buildings. Why? Because of essential government regulations? No. Because the insurers cared about liability. The free market provided this. You can probably find the logo on things all over your home.



You certainly should never be allowed to have guests in that house of horrors. You can forget about live music.

I've been in industrial maintenance for 7 years with no certifications. I've wired as high as 480v 400 amp services all the way down to 24vdc controls. Never had an inspector follow up on me and nothing has burnt down yet.

I wired a 400 amp meter base with transfer switch, 200 amp services to my house and barn, 5000' of 12/2 wire, 1000' of 12/3 wire, and about 100 circuits without a single inspection. It's a blazing inferno waiting to happen.

No amount of regulations, codes or inspectors can make up for those who take no pride in doing their job correctly.

 

[jbombelli]

As a matter of fact, I've been the engineer you're talking about. I've been on the design team. Schools, colleges, hospitals, pretty much everything. Had to read the ridiculous book of codes and all.

The codes were nonsense. Ridiculous busywork, in my opinion as an engineer. We had our own sets of standards that we followed. Not because of government regulations, but because we cared about our reputation when we went to bid on a job.

But since we're talking about standards, let's discuss some that often make sense in my experience. They were created by Underwriters Laboratories. You see, the founder of this company was hired by insurers at the age of 25, way back in the 1800's. He was hired to inspect buildings. Why? Because of essential government regulations? No. Because the insurers cared about liability. The free market provided this. You can probably find the logo on things all over your home.


You certainly should never be allowed to have guests in that house of horrors. You can forget about live music.

Not everybody cares. I've seen steel frames go up with literally only half the required bolts being used in a lot of places. Why? It saved money and was "good enough."

I've been in industrial maintenance for 7 years with no certifications. I've wired as high as 480v 400 amp services all the way down to 24vdc controls. Never had an inspector follow up on me and nothing has burnt down yet.

I wired a 400 amp meter base with transfer switch, 200 amp services to my house and barn, 5000' of 12/2 wire, 1000' of 12/3 wire, and about 100 circuits without a single inspection. It's a blazing inferno waiting to happen.

No amount of regulations, codes or inspectors can make up for those who take no pride in doing their job correctly.

But they can condemn a building in danger of caving in or burning down when an owner would otherwise keep it operating. And don't even try to tell me there aren't plenty of people out there who would do exactly that.

 

[steveh_131]

Not everybody cares. I've seen steel frames go up with literally only half the required bolts being used in a lot of places. Why? It saved money and was "good enough."

How is that possible? There are laws against this. And government inspectors.

Not possible.