Obviously how a good law was twisted to mean something else altogether. Fear between classes in our society has clouded and obscured the true intent of these laws. They are not meant to make sure the ugly smelly homeless people do not use the park but to make sure the right resources are available for charity event so it can be done in a safe manner.There is allot of responsibility that comes with feeding large volumes of people. Many could get sick or die if this guy doesn't do things right.(food storage, safe handling clean environment) Also the park could end up trashed if he doesn't have restrooms and trash cans. I think that is the reason you need a permit to hold large food events at the park.
You can't be sincere in your anti-government rant if the government is accused of being conservative?GTFO and take your liberal/conservative worldview with you.
Such irrational laws and the irrational communities that create them have no warrant over the actions of those who see through their stupidity to a more rational culture. As I point out repeatedly in every forum in which I can participate, "rule of the majority", if it is allowed equal domination of its irrational views with its rational views, becomes "dictatorship of the many over the few". Certainly, majority rule makes good sense assuming the views of the majority are consistently rational. If, however, the views of the many become irrational, the Rule of Rationality supersedes the views of the many. In any human culture, rule of the majority view isn't or ought not be the primary guiding principle. The Rule of Rationality ought to always be guiding principle number one, whether that rationality resides with the majority or with a minority. In the community described in the news video, the law is created and enforced by an irrational majority. That majority has lost its authority over the rational few and that rational minority need not comply with the majority view.Even if freedom to offer a meal to another who is hungry is the view of only one individual, that view supersedes the view of seven billion who believe it right to deny them that freedom.
What kind of jerkwad comes up with a law says,"You cannot feed people."?I think it is good for something like this to get press. Hopefully more people take it on themselves to feed the hungry. It is possibly the biggest problem in our world, and the easiest one to solve.
OMG, who would ever want to help anyone else without the state telling them they absolutely have to? I can't believe it. Unless we pass laws requiring us to help others, nobody will ever want to help anyone.Wait, so if most people don't want to help others, how do we get most people to vote for it?Oh those silly statists. They just keep ignoring reality.
bilabrinMar 24, 2009
Disneyland and Las Vegas - no homeless allowed!
Closed AccountMar 24, 2009
We can't have regular citizens helping their fellow man, the government has a monopoly on coerced charity.
wishninjaMar 24, 2009
Obviously how a good law was twisted to mean something else altogether. Fear between classes in our society has clouded and obscured the true intent of these laws. They are not meant to make sure the ugly smelly homeless people do not use the park but to make sure the right resources are available for charity event so it can be done in a safe manner.There is allot of responsibility that comes with feeding large volumes of people. Many could get sick or die if this guy doesn't do things right.(food storage, safe handling clean environment) Also the park could end up trashed if he doesn't have restrooms and trash cans. I think that is the reason you need a permit to hold large food events at the park.
shigMar 25, 2009
You can't be sincere in your anti-government rant if the government is accused of being conservative?GTFO and take your liberal/conservative worldview with you.
Closed AccountMar 25, 2009
Such irrational laws and the irrational communities that create them have no warrant over the actions of those who see through their stupidity to a more rational culture. As I point out repeatedly in every forum in which I can participate, "rule of the majority", if it is allowed equal domination of its irrational views with its rational views, becomes "dictatorship of the many over the few". Certainly, majority rule makes good sense assuming the views of the majority are consistently rational. If, however, the views of the many become irrational, the Rule of Rationality supersedes the views of the many. In any human culture, rule of the majority view isn't or ought not be the primary guiding principle. The Rule of Rationality ought to always be guiding principle number one, whether that rationality resides with the majority or with a minority. In the community described in the news video, the law is created and enforced by an irrational majority. That majority has lost its authority over the rational few and that rational minority need not comply with the majority view.Even if freedom to offer a meal to another who is hungry is the view of only one individual, that view supersedes the view of seven billion who believe it right to deny them that freedom.
faithclubdotnetMar 25, 2009
What kind of jerkwad comes up with a law says,"You cannot feed people."?I think it is good for something like this to get press. Hopefully more people take it on themselves to feed the hungry. It is possibly the biggest problem in our world, and the easiest one to solve.
governmentsgunMar 25, 2009
OMG, who would ever want to help anyone else without the state telling them they absolutely have to? I can't believe it. Unless we pass laws requiring us to help others, nobody will ever want to help anyone.Wait, so if most people don't want to help others, how do we get most people to vote for it?Oh those silly statists. They just keep ignoring reality.
makkaveli19Mar 25, 2009
isn't disneyland private property?
controls24Mar 31, 2009
I would be pretty mad if i were those homeless people