As you read this, keep in mind that there is also much ado (read: much a-DU) about ranchers who set break-fires and mitigation burns to protect their property from wildfires being charged as terrorists:
http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=105931.0Never mind the fact that in years past the government's failure to act on land it controls resulted in catastrophic loss of life and property, i.e. the California wildfires.
And when people are up in arms -- albeit it literally -- over the heavy-handed charging of the crime many Proglodytes respond with demands for civil war.
Now, we have a man who built an ice rink in memoriam of his step daughter. It's a sentimental reason so that instantly wins a shit-ton of support from the Progs.
But others aren't so sure.
They demand an ironclad adherence to Da RULZ!
Suddenly the beneficence of government is up for debate:
pipoman (15,219 posts)
8. Unlicensed/permitted businesses can't be allowed to just sprung up anywhere...
Business licenses assure proper insurance, tax compliance, and public safety.
A few blocks away from me there is a mother and daughter who decided to sell burritos out of their garage....should this be allowed too? No inspection, no food safety, no commercial experience....
pipoman (15,219 posts)
18. Served at 112 degrees..from ingredients warmed up in a cool whip container
In a microwave, topped with 60 degree lettuce, tomato, and sour cream...yummm...where's the bathroom? Or the hospital....
So don't eat there.
And anyone who does eat there assumes the risk as do the sellers assume the risk of civil action without a neutral 3rd party certifying their safety standards.
Why do we need government permission to eat when and where we want?
pipoman (15,219 posts)
6. Who/what pays or is responsible if someone is seriously injured?
The same person who would pay if you got hurt skating on a frozen pond on public land.
YOU!
YOU ASSUMED THE RISK!
pipoman (15,219 posts)
12. We all know that isn't how it works
You go to the hospital, they ask where you were injured, they bill the owner of the premises who passes the bill to their premise liability insurance company. If they don't have premise liability the bill is submitted to the injured's insurance, that insurance subrogates and sues the owner of the property for reimbursement....
In other words, the quest for "fairness" at the expense of personal responsibility has created an unlivable legal nightmare.
pipoman (15,219 posts)
14. The permit isn't just a fee
It is notice to begin an inspection of the construction. For instance a permit for a house begins with a site inspection to be sure the proposed site is far enough from public right of way, isn't over a nuclear waste site, or some other issue not immediately visible. Then the footing is dug which triggers another inspection to be sure the footing is properly constructed and in the right place....after this inspection the footings can be poured. Next is any plumbing under the poured floor inspected before the floor can be poured....etc, etc, etc....these things cannot be done retroactively...he spent $40k...we don't know that it wouldn't have cost $80k to build correctly in compliance....
So, if someone gets hurt does the government assume liability because they blessed off on the construction?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
lpbk2713 (28,419 posts)
13. "We are from the gummint and we are here to help you."
Oh yeah.
tabasco (21,020 posts)
15. Thank goodness for meddling bureaucrats
to keep us safe from backyard skating rinks.
anigbrowl (12,505 posts)
47. And if someone suffered an injury because it wasn't properly constructed
You be fulminating about people trying to duck out from under regulation and ask why building inspectors weren't on top of it. We have meddling bureaucrats to implement rules that were typically put in place in response to a pattern of problematic activity, such as an ongoing disregard for safety.
Next time you're in a second hand bookstore see if you can find an old casebook on tort law and read some of it. The details of various avoidable historical accidents will make your hair curl.
I have a story I like to tell some people about how there are government rules on the design of drain covers for swimming pools, and sure enough most listeners chuckle and agree that it's absurd that we need laws dictating the shape and style of plastic drain covers, a task better left to engineers and pool operators to sort out among themselves. Then I tell them about the what happens where those rules are not in place - children can get pulled onto the drain by the powerful water suction and drown or have their intestines pulled out. Which is exactly why some jurisdictions have adjusted pool safety standards...
tabasco (21,020 posts)
50. No, I wouldn't.
I really see no great danger to the community from a ******* plastic skating rink. LOL. As soon as the nanny state gets out of our lives, the better. I grew up skating on frozen farm ponds and managed to survive.
OH THE HUMANITY!!!
leftyladyfrommo (8,916 posts)
23. How about a trail in the woods with little fairy houses?
That's what we had here. An anonymous person left little fairy houses in the woods for children to find.
The powers that be tore it all down. Not allowed.
She built a very special one in memory of a little girl who died. I think it was allowed to stay?
What's wrong with people?
I know that as a child I would have been over the moon if I had discovered something like that. They were little tiny fairy houses with doors and furniture and really neat little miniature stuff inside. Now who the hell was that hurting?
Any consideration that the PTB you gripe about might also be sympathetic to your Climate Stasis religion?
saturnsring (973 posts)
28. cant they just post a skate at your own risk sign and be covered?
I suppose next you'll suggest anyone hurt on a property they entered without permission even though the owner posted "No Trespassing" signs is also SOL.
anigbrowl (12,505 posts)
49. No
You can just unilaterally waive liability and be in the clear. People are not that competent at assessing risk in the first place, and in particular they lack the knowledge to assess whether the operators of an attraction are always competent and diligent or whether they are sometimes negligent. Because things like structures and commercial attractions are generally permitted, the public assumes a certain standard of safety is being adhered to, and if that turns out not to be the case they might well sue the county (or other responsible party) for failing to inspect a facility that turned out to be dangerous or inadequate.
Also, while it seems everyone in the vicintiy is OK with his ice rink, this isn't always the case. Often such things are deemed an attractive nuisance because the popularity leads to commercial traffic that interferes with neighbors' enjoyment of their own property.
Think what a boon it would be to corporations if all they had to do was put up 'enter at your own risk' signs outside any commercial premises and escape any sort of liability for what transpired by saying 'they knew the risks.'
And there you have it, the rationale of the nanny-state.
Of course these self-appointed elitists feel competent enough to judge your competency.
tularetom (22,238 posts)
31. Say what you want, shit like this is why people hate government
Fear of losing their jobs forces code enforcement people and other local government employees to more or less be dicks in carrying out their duties and the codes themselves are structured so as to discourage common sense and judgment.
We are a litigious society and the fear of lawsuits determines our action in many areas. Nowhere is this fear more prevalent than in local government.
YA THINK!
Voice for Peace (12,394 posts)
32. This is the kind of thing that engenders hatred of government.
Period.
Membership here is free.
Omaha Steve (59,337 posts)
66. Leave him alone
OS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027491074
