Tuesday, January 11, 2005

A dumb Michelle Malkin post

This post is incredibly dumb.

So Miami Beach has a regulation against roadside vendors (and for purposes of this post their shall be no discussion of whether or not such a regulation is a good idea). Someone calls up and asks how to sell stuff on the roadside. Person answering the phone says you can't.

But Michelle Malkin says the regulators are "boneheaded" because they should have seen how deserving the caller was of being given an exemption.

I say Michelle Malkin is the boneheaded one. Why do we want our government workers to have the arbitrary power to decide upon whom to bestow a valuable government benefit? A just system of laws require that they apply the same way to all people.

22 comments:

emery69 said...

hey i was wondering if oyu where singel

Jeremy said...

What did you expect from the lady who wrote a book extolling the virtues of internment camps for inconvenient ethnic groups in America?

Aaronlane said...

I dont see where the lovely and talented Ms. Malkin mentions exemptions at all. She just mentions that no good deed goes unpunished. I believe the point you chose to ignore in this post is the crux of her objection. Namely, that this type of restriction is an impediment to all types of positive business.

I read her book defending internment camps, and was less than impressed but not quite outraged. Plus she complimented me on a nice suit I was wearing once, so she cannot actually do wrong.

Jeremy said...

She may be perfectly nice, but I find her politics revolting.

She's a lot of what I hate about the right, rolled up into a nice small package. I guess it's convenient if nothing else :-)

bahiabob said...

So.... In other words. Stop the whine and get in line. I like it fine! Geez, did I write that?? LG - Check out my blog, Spinnada. I think you will enjoy it, fellow Libertarian. Hasta La Vista, Baby.

Danny Taggart said...

I agree with Aaronlane. Michelle is criticizing the regulators for making the regulations, not the city bureaucrats who told the girl about the regulations. She is not advocating specific exemptions for lemonade stands or Tsunami-related stands.

Libertarian Girl said...

I believe the point you chose to ignore in this post is the crux of her objection. Namely, that this type of restriction is an impediment to all types of positive business.No no! Her point was that the government official was "boneheaded" for not realizing that a 10 year old girl raising money to help Tsunami victims gets an automatic exemption from a regulation that would a apply to an adult trying to make money so he could pay his rent.

This isn't a judgment call that I believe our government workers should be making. I work for the government, and if someone calls me with a question, I'm going to give out the correct answer, and not ask if the caller is really calling on behalf of a 10 year old kid out to do the Lord's work.

Libertarian Girl said...

And to respond to the guy who wrote the very first comment, the answer is I'm only single if the man asking is able to type in grammatically correct English.

Libertarian Girl said...

I agree with Aaronlane. Michelle is criticizing the regulators for making the regulations.

If she wanted to complain about the regulation, then she should writing about the great benefit from allowing vendors to sell stuff at the roadside. Instead, she's writing about some 10 year old girl and the Tsunami.

Jeremy said...

Well, in everybody's defense, it's kinda hard to figure out exactly *what* she's saying.

All we know from her post is that regulators suck and little girls are wonderful.

Gee, I learned a lot. :-)

Aaronlane said...

LG: "And to respond to the guy who wrote the very first comment, the answer is I'm only single if the man asking is able to type in grammatically correct English."LG:"then she should writing about the great benefit"Sorry, I'm a true bastard some days. Lots of editing and frustation with the meida today.

I stand by sweet, sweet Michelle. As I read it her beef is with the regulation itself.

Jeremy said...

Well, she deserves a tongue lashing for being vague, if nothing else. If you can't say what you mean on your blog, what good are you as a columnist?

If you see her again, tell her I said she sucks. :-P

Danny Taggart said...

Michelle's comment is short and somewhat ambiguous. However, I considered a couple of things:
1. The article said that the girl's lemonade "plan hit a brick wall, thanks to government regulations." Hence, the regulations, i.e., the laws on the books, were to blame.
2. Michelle is clearly targeting the regulators who put the regulations on the books in the first place. She never argues for an exemption for this girl, just points out that this is one example of stupid government regulations. She says "no good deed goes unpunished", implying there are other similar instances.

JRadstem said...

This is something that's been bothering me for awhile. How can just you justify working for the government while being a libertarian? Unless you are in the military or perform an essential government function, your beliefs are at odds with you actions.

Just wondering.

Jeremy said...

Yeah, and another thing: how can you justify being human and being a libertarian?

I mean, libertarians are total nazis! Don't you have any shame? Think of the children! Save the planet! Soylent Green is people!

Say said...

Well, that's not very libertarian.

Steph said...

Come on, guys, calling a libertarian a hypocrite for working for the government seems to me like calling a person who doesn't personally want an abortion yet pro-choice a hypocrite.

And obviously, the regulation is a bad idea, but as it's a city regulation (I'm assuiming), I don't have much of a problem with it.

Adam said...

JRad, where have you been? She's made a post about this. Even I made a post about this.

Goverment + Libertarian = Works.

Government + Anarchist = Hypocrite.

Don't make me break out the ClueStick.

David said...

Well, what did the regulation actually *say*? Perhaps it had an exemption for charitable activities, or for kids, or for enterprises open 3 days or less.

While I agree that it's dangerous to give too much discretion to unelected bureaucrats, it's impossible to run any organization well without making some provisions for discretion. It's hard to discuss this seriously without knowing what provisions for discretion, if any, were in the regulation, and whether the official in question interpreted them correctly.

Danny Taggart said...

Steph,

Actually, it's more like a pro-life person getting an abortion.

Brian Macker said...

I don't see the conflict with being a Libertarian and working for the government. Do you think that any libertarians should have committed suicide in the U.S.S.R when the only kind of jobs were government jobs. I don't think a persons career choice should be restricted by the fact that the government has monopolized a particular part of the economy.

That being said, I do think it is inconsistent to call for a breast implant tax.

I also think too much was read into the Malkin post. I would certainly agree with LGs points if I was sure Malkin meant it that way.

said...

A片,A片,成人網站,成人漫畫,色情,情色網,情色,AV,AV女優,成人影城,成人,色情A片,日本AV,免費成人影片,成人影片,SEX,免費A片,A片下載,免費A片下載,做愛,情色A片,色情影片,H漫,A漫,18成人

a片,色情影片,情色電影,a片,色情,情色網,情色,av,av女優,成人影城,成人,色情a片,日本av,免費成人影片,成人影片,情色a片,sex,免費a片,a片下載,免費a片下載

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣

A片,A片,A片下載,做愛,成人電影,.18成人,日本A片,情色小說,情色電影,成人影城,自拍,情色論壇,成人論壇,情色貼圖,情色,免費A片,成人,成人網站,成人圖片,AV女優,成人光碟,色情,色情影片,免費A片下載,SEX,AV,色情網站,本土自拍,性愛,成人影片,情色文學,成人文章,成人圖片區,成人貼圖

情色,AV女優,UT聊天室,聊天室,A片,視訊聊天室