Blog

Scanning the fingerprints and Irises of over a billion people. Wow.

The Times is totally channeling the Rime of the Ancient Mariner.

The question comes up on South Mountain, an urban refuge in southern Phoenix, on the four-mile hike down into Fossil Springs a couple of hours north and, most definitely, along the steep pathways that descend into the Grand Canyon. Wherever it is, hikers regularly encounter strangers gasping trailside from the heat.

“If it came down to having enough for myself or helping someone, I’d have to drink my own water,” said Laura Craig, a Phoenix businesswoman who shared some of her extra water with distressed strangers on a recent hike at Fossil Springs. “It’s an ethical decision. You hate to think of things like survival of the fittest, but it does come down to that.”

A hiker who had run out of water died in the Grand Canyon last weekend after some backpackers he had encountered, who were parched themselves, shared some of their water with him.

But the hiker continued on alone, ignoring the strangers’ entreaties for him to turn back toward the Colorado River, where hikers replenish their water supplies.

The encounter highlighted an ethos of strangers helping strangers that is as commonplace in the backcountry as it may be rare in places where the pathways are paved in concrete.

There are serious Tort issues, as well as norm concerns here.

One reason hikers say they help strangers is that they never know when they might find themselves in distress. And despite that kindness-to-strangers philosophy, there is still plenty of grumbling among veteran hikers about the novices who trek beyond their abilities, not to mention their water supplies.

Note to self, next time I am scheduling a presidential talk.

WhiteHouse.gov is offering a new service called We The People.

On this innovative WhiteHouse.gov platform, individuals will be able to create and sign petitions seeking action from the federal government on a range of issues. If a petition gathers enough signatures, White House staff will review it, ensure it is sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response.

To create and build support for a petition, WhiteHouse.gov visitors will simply need to create an account and gather signatures by reaching out to friends, family and coworkers. If a petition reaches a certain threshold – the initial level will be 5,000 signatures within 30 days – it will be sent to the appropriate policy makers throughout the Administration, reviewed, and an official response will be published to WhiteHouse.gov and emailed to all signers of the petition.

The Atlantic picks up on the right to earn a living, and picks on an Indiana statute that reads, “It is in the interest of public safety and welfare to require certain individuals to obtain a license before conducting solicitations or making sales transactions throughout the town.”

Put simply, if you aren’t a resident, you’ll need an expensive permit to make or sell anything, whether on the street, door-to-door, or in a brick-and-mortar business inside town.

What’s required for a permit?

One hundred dollars, getting fingerprinted by police, and a criminal background check. “If the applicant has been convicted of any misdemeanor or felony, the permit application may be rejected,” the law states. And if you’re granted a 30 day permit? Once it expires, you’re ineligible to apply again for six whole months.

So it’s in the public interest, right?

This is the sort of story that makes me furious. Burns Harbor officials insist their law is necessary to protect public safety, but from 2001 to 2009, an eight year  stretch before the law was passed, the town had zero murders, zero rapes, and three robberies. Its police presence is 4.36 officers per 1,000 residents, compared to an average of 1.87 officers per 1,000 residents elsewhere in Indiana. Meanwhile, there are high unemployment rates and tens of thousands of people on food stamps in the surrounding Lake Michigan region. Few firms are hiring. People are looking for a way to make a living. Some of them want to sell stuff. Why burden them? Why force folks to be fingerprinted like a criminal if they want to hawk goods at a local flea market? Why exclude from commerce people convicted of a mere misdemeanor? In a global economy, why should a traveling salesman be allowed to sell his goods only at 6 month intervals inside a town of 1,156 people?

And the author opens up on the crackdowns on lemonade stands and the like (which I’ve covered at some length):

The town council is abusing its authority. Alas, theirs is a common attitude. The normal mindset among U.S. officials is that prior permission should be required to sell legal goods to a willing buyer. Kids selling lemonade on the street are shut down. A Missouri man has been fined $90,000 for selling rabbits (he made about $200). In Illinois, an artisan ice cream maker is being shut down for lack of a dairy permit. Manuel Winn was arrested, handcuffed, and booked for selling magazines door-to-door without a permit. A Maryland mother of three was arrested for selling $2 phone cards without a license. Lots of municipalities are going after food trucks. A group of Louisiana monks had to go to court to win the right to sell simple wooden caskets to consumers.

These laws are protectionist barriers to entry that exude very high safety costs (see, you like how I worked that in?). The forgotten man, the merchant who cannot, or does not obtain the permit, is punished.

But, in the absence of a change in the thought of the elected branches, would result in a change? Well not the legislature, they love these protectionist laws. Not the executive, they have an interest in enforcing stupid laws. Hrm….