Yeah yeah yeah. I thought of that. They don't >own< public property, they manage it on behalf of/in trust for the citizenry. I thought of changing the wording but figured the point was clear enough as it stood: even on such property, what is being paid for is not the right to perform per se, but the right to use such property as a performance venue.

Hiya, Martin:

I agree with you on two points: 1) A single incident does not demonstrate a pattern; and, 2)We are a nation of laws, which laws are meant to ensure that no person, in exercising his rights, impinges on the rights of another.

That being said, the dog example I gave was illustrative of a good intention (assuring that dog owners are responsible for the actions of their pets) giving rise to a bad result (intrusive and unnecessarily restrictive regulation). It seems to me that responsible citizenship and accountability for the actions of one's pets (or other property) can be had without resorting to further bureaucracy and diminution of liberty. In the dog example, why not simply a tag indicating ownership of said animal? Why an entire system of registration and annual fees...for owning a dog? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

We pay to register our motor vehicles, and then keep paying every year (and no, motor vehicle license fees in Cali do NOT pay for road upkeep); we pay a governmental fee to build or remodel our houses, to open and run a business, to hold a parade on public property, to use the telephone, or to beg. Licenses must even be obtained from, and fees paid to, the government in order to be embalmed and buried when we die.

Yes, we are a nation of laws, and each citizen's right to swing their fist ends at the point of their neighbour's nose. But it is abundantly clear that the Framers never intended the better part of our lives to be regulated...to death!

Leland

Well, this thread has certainly provided some interesting reading...

I live in CA, and I constantly see trucks and vans on the highway, belonging to home improvement contractors, plumbers, landscapers, locksmiths, appliance repairers, and so on. These guys (a lot of them small independent operators) go all over the place, and I have to wonder if they do indeed have a business license in every town they work. My guess (and it's a guess) is no.

Might it be worthwhile to see how these people do business?

Well yeah but that would mean they'd have to actually work for a living.

Work and do their job? no way.. we can't have the law enforcement do that now can we? hehe

Kyle

Greetings, Magi:

Hopefully the last strand on this particular thread, and submitted for what it's worth:

I recently received a call for a job in La Mirada -- unrelated to Magic -- and decided that a business licence was in order. Behold, the city posts a copy of its municipal code online, and surfing to the appropriate page I discovered an exemption for "entertainers" (such as Magicians) performing on property "owned, rented, leased, managed, or controlled by the State of California, the County of Los Angeles, the City of La Mirada, or any subdivision thereof."

I do not know how long this information has been online, but a bit of research certainly could have divulged this loophole and resulted in a very different turn of events two years ago. "Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these...it might have been."

Happy New Year, Magi!

Leland

Leland....Since the day I met you I thought I smelled trouble! Call me up and I might be able to direct you to some local news that will pick up the story!!
cheers chris