I’ve been taking a lot of flak for complaining about San Francisco’s banning soda vending machines on city property. As if I needed any more proof that the government of that city contains some of the worst nanny-staters in the entire country, consider this. And weep. San Francisco is busy taking away liberties you didn’t even realize you had.
Jason Kuznicki
Jason Kuznicki is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and contributor of Cato Unbound. He's on twitter as JasonKuznicki. His interests include political theory and history.
Devcat is watching over, but if you notice any problems contact the editors and Devcat will be notified and deployed immediately.
on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to IcelandWhen I was there last winter, I could see the red glow from that direction and there was a bored-loo…
on Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024What North said. I guess I was so incredulous at the suggestion that something happened without us t…
on Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024Shoot, it was the classified docs case. I guess foreign entities can start lining up at the window.…
on Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024Whew, worried I'd miss some earth-shatteringly (maybe literally) important news.
on Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024Big Ag begs Trump to spare their workers from deportation. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-farm-… on Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024The Shen Yun dance troop, associated with Falun Gong, is in trouble over disturbing child labor prac…
on Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024Yeah he's clearly, incorrectly, conflating ATACMS with ICBM's. on Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024Have we given Ukraine ICBMs, or does he mean the short-range tactical ballistic missiles Ukraine has…
on The Mandate That Wasn’t"It’s amazing how 15 million people managed to enter the country illegally through that closed south… on Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024Jack Smith is throwing in the towel. https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/…
It’s Going to be a Hard Winter
November 25, 2024
Hunting the Wild Goose – It’s a Funny Game
November 24, 2024
November 23, 2024
November 22, 2024
on Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024 on Saturday Morning Gaming: Game Awards Game of the Year Nominees are in on Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024 on Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024
on Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024
on Open Mic for the week of 11/25/2024
on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to Iceland
on Saturday Morning Gaming: Game Awards Game of the Year Nominees are in
on Paper: Inflation and the 2024 US Presidential Election on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to Iceland on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to Iceland on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to Iceland on Paper: Inflation and the 2024 US Presidential Election on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to Iceland on Weekend Plans Post: On a Plane to Iceland
Where in the Constitution is your right to buy a cat from a pet store, get bored with it, then throw it outside to be run over by a car?Report
@Jaybird, that would be your right to own property and the state’s inability to take it from you without just compensation, explicated in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
At common law back in Ye Merrie Olde Englande, pets, livestock, and other animals were considered mere chattel, and you can do with your chattel as you please. So if you wanted to take an absolutist view of property rights, then you should be able to toss Miss Kitty under a passing Peterbilt if you should so please — provided you don’t damage the Peterbilt in the process — and the state ought not say “boo” about it.
This does not mean I condone throwing cats under cars by any means whatsoever. Nor do I really think that a statute criminalizing animal cruelty constitutes a legislative taking of property; I’m not that pure of a libertarian. But, you asked, so there’s your answer.Report
@Transplanted Lawyer, oh, the Amendments don’t mean *THAT*.
I mean, a literal reading of the 1st Amendment would make McCain-Feingold unconstitutional.
A literal reading of the 2nd would make it unconstitutional to ban an Uzi.
A literal reading of the 8th would make waterboarding unconstitutional.
Try again, hippie.Report
@Jaybird, I think McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed with me on that one (for once).
I think it is unconstitutional to ban Uzis.
I think it is unconstitutional to waterboard prisoners.
Peace. Love. Flowers.Report
That is indeed a really stupid one. But notice that it’s currently two removes from becoming reality:
First, it’s still under consideration by the Commission of Animal Control and Welfare.
Second, the commission have no power to do more than make recommendations. Even if they approve, it has to be voted on by the elected Board of Supervisors before becoming a law.
And both of these stages require public meetings to be held, so the chances of pet stores disappearing from SF are IMHO not high. If it’s OK with you, I’m going to worry more about citizens being kidnapped and sent to other countries to be tortured than about not being able to buy a hamster and feed it diet coke.Report
My favorite involves cutting bagels into quarters, instead of merely halves.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/08/BA5C18L6RG.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea
And effective immediately, no more runs to the doughnut shop before meetings and conferences held by city workers. Instead, city employees must use guidelines created by the Health Department when ordering food for meetings.
Examples include cutting bagels into halves or quarters so people can take smaller portions and serving vegetables instead of potato chips.
(Where in the Constitution is your right to a whole bagel?)Report
@Jaybird, hey, if you’re eating the city’s bagel, you play by the city’s bagel rules. You want a whole bagel? No one in San Francisco is stopping you from buying your own.
Yet.Report
@Transplanted Lawyer, from my cold, dead hands…Report
@Jaybird,
(Where in the Constitution is your right to a whole bagel?)
After you cut it into quarters, it’s a hole-less bagel.Report
This is only the tip of the iceberg… the SF government loves banning random things for ‘your own good’ This is just the first in a long line of stupid bans. I’m glad I live in the East Bay.Report
There was a restuarant owner in Phillie on the radio this morning talking about his fine for wearing too much jewelry in his kitchen. The city was harrassing him because he put up sign asking customers to speak English when ordering — but they actually have a too-much- jewelry law on the books. He had a medallion around his neck and a bracelet given to him by his mother.Report