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

[BigBoxaJunk]

Do the "needs" of the collective trump the owner's right to use his property in a manner he sees fit?

Is the rule conducive to a free and voluntary society?

Freedom must always be tempered by the imposition of fair and reasonable requirements to insure things like (in this case) public safety.

The essence of tyranny is the destruction of property rights. Ownership of your self. Ownership of your labor. Ownership of your land.

When some third party is demanding permission to "allow" the "owner" to do things on their own property, it is absolutely statist.

I suppose property taxes aren't so bad either? Even though they turn the owner into a vassal, paying rent for life to the feudal lord.

The owner's right to use his property in a manner that he sees fit is obviously trumped by the "needs" of the collective, since any property owner might want to use his property in a manner that he sees fit, but that may pose a real risk of imposing undue harm or infringements of the rights of the collective.

You might feel differently if you have a neighbor who wants to open a Hazardous Waste Recycling business in his garage.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

There is no way to protect the rights of all without posing restrictions on the rights of some.

 

[rambone]

The owner's right to use his property in a manner that he sees fit is obviously trumped by the "needs" of the collective, since any property owner might want to use his property in a manner that he sees fit, but that may pose a real risk of imposing undue harm or infringements of the rights of the collective.

You might feel differently if you have a neighbor who wants to open a Hazardous Waste Recycling business in his garage.

At first I thought you were being sarcastic. Then I was like, wow.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

For example, there were no rules that infringed a person's right to dump whatever he wanted into a stream until a sufficient number of people reported that their right to having clean water to drink was being infringed.

And FYI, those rules started popping up in the colonies in the 1700s.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

For example, there were no rules that infringed a person's right to dump whatever he wanted into a stream until a sufficient number of people reported that their right to having clean water to drink was being infringed.

And FYI, those rules started popping up in the colonies in the 1700s.

So what you're really saying is lack of self control, lack of compassion/consideration of your neighbor, is the reason new laws are created. One of the pre-requisites for freedom is self-restraint. When you dump chemicals into rivers or burn people alive in your night club because you didn't take the responsibility to prevent those tragedies, we shouldn't be surprised when the collective demands new laws to force you to do what you should have done in the first place.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

At first I thought you were being sarcastic. Then I was like, wow.

Yeah, count me right along with those crazy fools who support a law that prevents my neighbor from being allowed to collect barrels of radioactive waste in his yard.

 

[hooky]

Live music in a bar = radioactive waste in my neighbor's backyard?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

So what you're really saying is lack of self control, lack of compassion/consideration of your neighbor, is the reason new laws are created. One of the pre-requisites for freedom is self-restraint. When you dump chemicals into rivers or burn people alive in your night club because you didn't take the responsibility to prevent those tragedies, we shouldn't be surprised when the collective demands new laws to force you to do what you should have done in the first place.

What I'm saying is that, if we could count on everyone to be like-minded in manners of self-control, compassion, consideration, and responsibility then they wouldn't be called laws they'd be called guidelines.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Live music in a bar = radioactive waste in my neighbor's backyard?

No, that's why the rules for both are also different.

 

[mrjarrell]

I don't necessarily have any issue with a local fire marshal setting some standards for occupation of buildings, as they do in most places. I do have an issue with a state agency requiring permits that the locals do not. The state needs to be much smaller and unobtrusive in its dealings. IDHS needs to be disbanded and stop interfering in things that should be solely a local matter, if anything. There should be no need for a permit for events such as this. This is simply a money and power grab.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What I'm saying is that, if we could count on everyone to be like-minded in manners of self-control, compassion, consideration, and responsibility then they wouldn't be called laws they'd be called guidelines.

Right. We don't get to exercise our rights in a vacuum. All rights are infringed to one extent or the other by how we wish to live together in homes, communities, states, etc. The logic seems quite simple to me: the less self-control, the more laws are written.

Unfortuntely, the more you try to reduce into writing, how you are going to prescribe acceptable behavior, the more complicated you make life for those of us that just want to get through it, minding our own business.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Live music in a bar = radioactive waste in my neighbor's backyard?

There may have been people whose neighbor had radioactive waste and they never were harmed, and may never even knew it. And there have been some people who went to a venue with an improperly set-up live music act and were burned to death.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Right. We don't get to exercise our rights in a vacuum. All rights are infringed to one extent or the other by how we wish to live together in homes, communities, states, etc. The logic seems quite simple to me: the less self-control, the more laws are written.

Unfortuntely, the more you try to reduce into writing, how you are going to prescribe acceptable behavior, the more complicated you make life for those of us that just want to get through it, minding our own business.

Yeah, I think that gets to a theory that I've always had that humans evolved living in relatively small social units, and are really just not adequately adapted to live in organizations bigger than one in which they personally know most or all the other members.

Basically, we've always done our best living in small discrete social units, even when those small units were part of a larger collective.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I don't necessarily have any issue with a local fire marshal setting some standards for occupation of buildings, as they do in most places. I do have an issue with a state agency requiring permits that the locals do not. The state needs to be much smaller and unobtrusive in its dealings. IDHS needs to be disbanded and stop interfering in things that should be solely a local matter, if anything. There should be no need for a permit for events such as this. This is simply a money and power grab.

That, I agree with. I also believe that the agencies themselves don't always necessarily desire the money and power, but oftentimes private sector interests lobby for requirements that will provide them with money-making opportunities.

 

[rambone]

For example, there were no rules that infringed a person's right to dump whatever he wanted into a stream until a sufficient number of people reported that their right to having clean water to drink was being infringed.

Come on, poisoning a shared water supply has not a damn thing to do with this. If you are polluting other people's resources then your neighbors have a valid complaint against your actions.

We're talking about prohibiting music, people. In your own building. MUSIC.

 

[rambone]

Every nannyish law that people dream up always results in force exerted through the barrel of a gun.

What happens if he keeps playing songs in defiance of Homeland Security? The end result will be people with guns raiding his restaurant, ripping his guitar from his hands and throwing him in a cage. Because private property doesn't mean **** to a collectivist.

 

[hooky]

Live music in a bar = radioactive waste in my neighbor's backyard?

No, that's why the rules for both are also different.

Then why bring it up as part of your argument then?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Then why bring it up as part of your argument then?

Mostly because he asked if I thought that the rights of the collective trumped the rights of the property-owner to do as he sees fit.

The government has rules about having dangerous materials on your property to protect others from the dangers that may be caused by the waste.
The government has rules about having live music on your property to protect patrons from dangers that may be caused (as in the fire caused by indoor pyrotechnics at a Great White show).

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Every nannyish law that people dream up always results in force exerted through the barrel of a gun.

Who gets to decide which laws are nannyish and which ones aren't? Even you believe we need some laws, you just don't believe we need THAT law.

 

[rambone]

Who gets to decide which laws are nannyish and which ones aren't? Even you believe we need some laws, you just don't believe we need THAT law.

I think a more pressing question is who gets to decide if its safe for me to play the piano while people eat.