Austin City Limits Lemonade Stands

Uber and Lyft may have left Austin but don’t make the mistake of thinking that’s because the voters or the Austin City Council promote overly burdensome regulations. Not at all. Recently, for example, the council lifted some of its regulations so that young entrepreneurs could get a start in business by selling lemonade. Nick Sibilla at the Institute for Justice has the rest of the story.


On Lemonade Day—and only on Lemonade Day—registered participants do not have to spend $35 to obtain a “temporary food permit,” and are also exempt from spending a staggering $425 on “a license agreement and fees” to use public property.

Unfortunately, the city’s friendliness to budding entrepreneurs ends there. Lemonade stands run by kids must comply with Austin’s “temporary food service guidelines.” Some of the rules include:

  • “Provide potable water for cleaning and sanitizing utensils. Use three (3) containers for WASHING, RINSING & SANITIZING. Sanitizing solution must be kept between 50-100ppm chlorine. Test papers can be found at restaurant supply stores.”
  • “Hand washing – Use a gravity-type water dispenser for hand washing. Example: drink dispenser with a spout or spigot. Do not forget hand washing soap, paper towels and catch basin. Wash hands for at least 20 seconds. Use of liquid alcohol sanitizer or single-use gloves is required for all food handling.”
  • “Provide a ceiling or canopy above beverage preparation and service areas. Example: wood, canvas or other material that protects the interior of the establishment from the weather and other agents.”
  • “All food, equipment, single service items shall be stored at least 6 inches above the floor.”
  • “No eating, drinking, smoking is allowed in the food booth.”

Parents or legal guardians who want their kids to participate in Lemonade Day must also sign a waiver, and “agree to release, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the organizers of Lemonade Day and anyone associated with it or Lemonade Day from any and all claims for personal injuries or property damage resulting from my child/ren’s participation in Lemonade Day, even if such injury is caused by the negligence of them.”

I’m sure the kids were disappointed by all these costly regulations but I don’t think these budding entrepreneurs will let regulations stop them. After all, as every entrepreneur knows, “when life gives you lemons, make…”…oh never mind.


The safest course is to have uniform health and safety guidelines, and then count on the cops to have good sense and to ignore the kid's lemonade stands. I think that's the way it's worked time immemorial.

Related: Why Are You Not Dead Yet?

"Contaminated food was one of the greatest killers, especially of infants; once they stopped breast-feeding, their food could expose them to typhoid fever, botulism, salmonella, and any number of microbes that caused deadly diarrhea in young children. (Death rates for infants were highest in the summer, evidence that they were dying of food contaminated by microbes that thrive in warm conditions.) Refrigeration, public health drives for pure and pasteurized milk, and an understanding of germ theory helped people keep their food safe. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 made it a crime to sell adulterated food, introduced labeling laws, and led to government meat inspection and the creation of the Food and Drug"

There is a missing link between "Food poisoning bad" and "These regulations good".

Do these regulations actually meaningfully reduce the harm from food poisoning? Evidence is lacking. There is a complete lack of such regulations on food prepared and served in the home, and a large proportion of food is, yet there is not an epidemic of food poisoning deaths due to home cooked food.

How many food poisoning deaths are prevented by requiring a roof over a lemonade stand (whether operated by children or as a real business)? Or by requiring a chlorine solution bath for the same?

That article does say that food hygiene has added to life expectancy. Is that really such a revolutionary idea?

On a meta level, seriously guys? Do you think kids' lemonade stands are the "wedge" you need against "the oppressive state?"

Maybe, just maybe, rational people will understand that food hygiene does us all good, and that kids' lemonade stands are a corner case, not the real story.

You're conflating opposition to regulation with opposition to the goal the regulation is supposed to achieve. Everyone agrees that food hygiene is good. Where we disagree is how best to achieve food hygiene in the least disruptive way.

If county health inspection happens every day, and a kid's lemonade stand is the corner case that you worry about, maybe we *are* achieving our goals with minimum disruption.

Anon doesn't seem capable of providing evidence. I am not surprised, regulation is the holy spirit in dogmatic leftism. The federal government could create a regulation which is proven to increase food poisoning, and many folks would be opposed to admitting it or doing anything about it because of the political harm that would be caused to the regulatory regime.

Again, food hygiene is an obvious good, but what is the evidence that these regulations improve food hygiene meaningfully?

Food safety regulations such as these place a huge burden on business, and therefore they should be kept to the minimum necessary for safety. That means requiring real evidence that regulations are necessary and effective (passing a cost-benefit test). Requiring a roof over every food stand imposes a cost of $X on business (and therefore consumers of the food). Is there enough of a safety benefit to justify this?

It's not really about children's lemonade stands; they are just a compelling image of the reach of the regulatory apparatus.

Are you reading the links? 30,000 deaths in China attributed to lax enforecment.

@anon, lax enforcement of positive cost-benefit regulations does not come close to equating to all regulations are cost-benefit, or even helpful at all.

If someone poor tries to make a buck, it's important to stomp on them and strangle them to death. Sometimes literally, if he's selling loose cigarettes.

To be fair, he died of cardiac arrest

Every few months there's a listeria or e coli outbreak in this US. It's usually reported and managed by the CD.

Do you think there would be a) more of those or b) fewer if we did away with the oppressive food safety regime?

I still insist on evidence for these specific regulations.

Note that this is not an ideological issue. Whatever your view on the proper level of government involvement, we all should be able to agree that whatever the government does, it should do effectively. And if you are not measuring the effect of what you do, you are guaranteed to be ineffective.

"Do you think kids’ lemonade stands are the “wedge” you need against “the oppressive state?"

Yes. That some bureaucrats feel the need to extend their reach to kids' lemonade stands exemplifies the officiousness of the Administrative State. Nanny Bloomberg would no doubt want to limit the sugar content and the size of the serving cups too.

I recently started a drinks company. Supposedly the license processing time was 20 days, it actually took 101. The 101 days were filled with requests for information that was in the application documentation, each time they asked we sent them the same document again. One document was sent seven times. The people handling the application demonstrated no awareness of even the most elementary things such as the effect of pH on safety. The auditor who came to certify our procedures looked confused the whole time and interrupted halfway through to ask why we were talking about drinks when we were a bakery. The sole change they made to our procedures was to insist that stuff be moved in containers on wheeled trolleys, instead of in wheeled containers. The process cost tens of thousands of dollars, had zero impact on product safety.

Basically, I think Alex pines for a world without the germ theory of disease.

Joseph who??,_1st_Baron_Lister

One of you people.. This isn't turning rotten meat into sausage and then selling it as if it's good (I'm sure fraud was already a crime and at least a civil matter)...

Maybe you're an OCD germaphobe but I doubt you think those precautions are necessary when preparing food for yourself. That's because they're unnecessary. We shouldn't have to all live by the standards of mental deficients like yourself.

My girlfriend grew up in a tropical country without common refrigeration. She leaves food out and tells me "it won't kill you." So far she is right. The thing is, that is just family risk, and not tens to hundreds of strangers every day.

We also don't have the profit motive that "someone else is eating it."

Little kids running lemonade stands? Stand by my case that you're mentally deficient.

How about "I want customers to return so I won't kill them" or "I don't want to be lynched or thrown in jail so I won't kill my customers"

You're just trolling now.

So your girlfriend is going to open a restaurant where she leaves out all the food all day?

One thing I still haven't gotten used to in Singapore is that eggs are delivered in open-air trucks and stacked unrefrigerated at outdoor restaurants all day.

This in a country where the temperature is usually above 30 degrees Celsius.

In Canada I could swear that eggs would go rotten quickly outside the fridge.

The difference is that Americans (and maybe Canadians, too) insist that all eggs be washed before being sold. This eliminates salmonella bacteria that may coat the shell of the egg but the downside is that you have to refrigerate the egg. It is an interesting regulatory trade-off.

The truth about anons motivation comes out in the end. He hates profit and knows regulation reduces it.

Of course, children sometimes (all the times?) don't practice good sanitation habits, but those who learn good sanitation habits carry it over to adulthood; those who don't, don't, and often go to work in food service. It's easy to ridicule government regulation of lemonade stands, just as it's easy to ridicule government regulation of restaurants when there's an outbreak of salmonella, etc. Maybe Tabarrok would like to serve as Austin's official taster, the modern day version of the king's taster. My suggestion to Tabarrok: if there are pieces of lemon rind in the lemonade (or, heaven forbid, pieces of band-aid), don't drink it.

What conservatives don't understand is the business model of Uber.

If Uber were to do lemonade stands, they would market Uber lemonade stands, but state repeatedly that Uber does not provide food and drink of any kind, but they would take 10% of everything you buy at Uber lemonade stands, and set the prices of everything sold at lemonade stands, prices set below the cost of ingredients, with expensive requirements on the construction standards for the lemonade stand.

Kid lemonade stands are regulated by government because conservatives demanded the regulations be enforced on kid lemonade stands so conservatives could complain about the regulations. Plus a reasonable exemption for kids would make it impossible for police to harass and lockup poor white trash and non-whites who go into wealthy areas to make money off people who actually have money to spend so the effort is worth it.

After all, conservatives paint lemonade stands as free market lessons to kids, but slightly older kids selling stuff people want more are seen as criminals that conservatives want government to stop, whether it's drugs or just loose cigarettes on which all the taxes were paid, or food made in a food cart in front of fast food places. Or street artists.

And they really hate the panhandlers who market charity on the street !

Note conservatives argue fraud is impossible when a transaction is voluntary. Yet they want panhandle jailed for fraud because the panhandle are committing fraud by looking poor and needy when they are really millionaires.

Which gets to why conservatives hate Trump.

He's the kid who setup a conservative presidential lemonade stand that has attracted more business than the 16 professional Republican establishment lemonade stands that lost money hand over fist.

Trump spit in the face of Republican establishment regulators of lemonade stands.

And now that he's the only one left, he's still spitting in the face of the regulators.

It seems youu suffer from Trump derangement syndrome.

He's just generally deranged

> prices set below the cost of ingredients

Yes, and in your analogy, we would keep observing tons of people deciding to go into the Uber lemonade business, in spite of it being a labor-intensive way to lose money.

No wonder you are so confused on economics, as you can't even understand the basics of a simple marketplace business model. An uber for lemonade stands would allow you to see where stands are near you, see how other users rated the stands, and let you settle on a price and make payment without having to carry cash or get a credit card merchant account. If the price didn't meet your reserve price, you just wouldn't sell a cup through uber.

It's amazing you can keep reading this blog and other comments and not absorb any understanding of how the world works, your mind is just that closed.


This is an excellent health precaution, but the Austin City Fathers seem shortsighted in its application.

Normal home prepared foods should be prohibited entirely; ALL foods consumed in Austin should be obtained only from City-approved & regulated sources. Health must be a top priority.

And just think of the job creation.

Much less more space in homes by getting rid of all those kitchen appliances

It's because anyone who works in an approved location has had to have at least some basic training on not transmitting bacteria, proper storage temperatures, cleaning stuff, etc., and is required to have industrial cleaning equipment with hot enough temperatures and proper cleaning agents to ensure minimal/no bacteria.

Of course if you want to eat from your own kitchen, people are welcome to take their own risks according to their preferences. But introducing risks to others is a different story. I don't think there's much potential for anything to go wrong with lemonade stands though ...

"Of course if you want to eat from your own kitchen, people are welcome to take their own risks according to their preferences. But introducing risks to others is a different story."

But we frequently have guests and occasionally host events where we feed a couple of dozen people with food prepared in our kitchen (no inspection, no formal health/safety training, no industrial cleaning equipment!) I don't normally think of my friends, relatives, and acquaintances as great risk takers, but there they are eating food from my uninspected kitchen as if they hadn't a care in the world. And I suspect we may not be the only ones! It's truly a puzzle -- why is the body count not much, much higher?

Presumably they've been able to personally evaluate whether the preparation facilities are likely to be hygienic. An uninspected commercial outlet has the potential to poison a very large number of people if they have bad practices, like to properly washing hands and cutting boards involved in stages of preparing meat.

In a commercial outlet, you are required to follow proper washing procedures basically any time you touch anything with any potential for contamination, and are required to a) know about and b) implement, proper practices for storage temperatures. Presumably when you have people over for dinner, everything has been cooked recently and the risks are low.

And presumably you would be able to do the same with a lemonade stand...

Jeez, I hope these commentators feel safe knowing that the government will protect them from all evil. As for me, I'm happy to risk the infinitesimal chance of getting ill to support a childhood venture. There are a few more pressing matters for the police to enforce.

I'm a fan of neighborhood lemonade stands and always make a point of stopping for a glass.

But little did I know I was supporting economic subversion - now I have even more incentive

Me too, that's why I said that cops should just turn a blind eye to the occasional stand.

Except they don't, as seen here:

and here:

and here:

In most of these cases, the problem was neighbors, not the police. That means the cops can either face a complaint that they didn't enforce the law or shut down the stand.

Neighbors can be jerks. If I was the cop, I'd tell the kids I was going to drive around the block, and then see if there were any lemonade stands operating.

I can't think that most stands are ratted out, most are probably ignored. I mean, modern kids get bored after a couple hours anyway.

I like your view in theory, but i think there is a danger in counting on police to selectively enforce laws based on good sense. In the best case, it works out like you say, in the worst, laws are selectively enforced against unfavored groups and ignored against favored groups. Favored groups can be those who are in the right social strata, those who are the right race, those who wield power, those who bribe the police, etc. Ask Eric Garner what its like to have trivial laws enforced.

Crime Problems and Cop Problems are forever in tension.

Thats a kind of a non-answer. If you cant stand to see a law enforced, you shouldnt have those laws on the books. If they are on the books, then you need to be prepared to see those laws vigorously enforced, because that will eventually happen. Personally, i think its reasonable to expect that an established business follow reasonable health code laws and that those laws will be enforced. I also think its reasonable that if you see a kid selling lemonade on the side of the road, you are smart enough to know that there is no real health code or enforcement and so drink at your own "risk" If that bothers you, dont stop, its not the end of the world.

I was thinking of Tom Robbins and Still Life With Woodpecker.

Hawaii once had a rat problem. Then, somebody hit upon a brilliant solution. import mongooses from India. Mongooses would kill the rats. It worked. Mongooses did kill the rats. Mongooses also killed chickens, young pigs, birds, cats, dogs, and small children. There have been reports of mongooses attacking motorbikes, power lawn mowers, golf carts, and James Michener. in Hawaii now, there are as many mongooses as there once were rats. Hawaii had traded its rat problem for a mongoose problem. Hawaii was determined nothing like that would ever happen again.

How could Leigh-Cheri draw for Gulietta the appropriate analogy between Hawaii's rodents and society at large? Society had a crime problem. It hired cops to attack crime. Now society has a cop problem.”

So regulations should exist, because they save us, but they should be selectively enforced, because we won't die if we are allowed to practice some discretionary judgment.

We have conflicting goals that are not met by a uniform policy, and so a varied one, even a gray scale one, is necessary.

We want food safety. We want kids to have fun. We don't want corrupt and tubercular parents to have kids front for a food and drink stand.

There is no other way to satisfy all goals.

"There is no other way to satisfy all goals." A failure of imagination?

Sorry, anon, I wasn't clear enough. Let me rephrase: If the key to making the whole thing work is discretionary judgment then that means the regulations are irrelevant. Let's skip that step and stick with our good judgment. Problem solved.

It's not a failure of imagination, Cliff. The unspoken goals are to reduce profits across the board, and to create positions for officious little toads like anon here, who would make a great torturer in the gulsg, carefully following each guideline.

Discretionary judgment is for the legislators.

Gotta teach em young. Kids should be proficient at swimming through both water and red tape.

Enterprising kids will figure out several ways to dodge these rules:
-They can sell it as "bath lemonade".
-Citric acid can be listed as the "active ingredient" of their "natural limescale remover" product.
-Elaborate share/ownership schemes. You never bought this glass of lemonade- you bought a right to a share of a glass, etc etc.

And finally - they can add more epsom salts than normal, and re-label it as a laxative. That'd really give the council the shits!

@anon - I agree! In fact we should have laws which make everything illegal - and then leave it to ME to determine whether you should be arrested, tried, convicted and incarcerated. The more laws, the better! And, just to be clear, not only should everything be illegal, but it should violate at least 3 different statutes, and on average ~7.
The real question is what proportion of the kiddie lemonade customers experienced adverse health outcomes compared to the proportion of food cart and fast food customers? Is there a reasonably good evidentiary basis to restrict this type of private enterprise.
Why anyone would claim that, at the margin, increasing cost wouldn't reduce supply? OBVIOUSLY, additional roadblocks will reduce the number of people willing to participate, ceterus paribus. I would assume either the comment is sarcasm, or that A.T. experienced a "100% of survivors survived" logical fallacy moment...there must be a term for that in the economics profession, right? Like people who traverse a mine field concluding that it was their skill and innate talent which separates them from those who didn't make it through. Entrepreneurs aren't dissuaded by roadblocks? LOL.

Do you use such straw-men because you have nothing else?

From the "revolutionary" link above: "The supervision and enforcement of the food hygiene law proved an administrative challenge in China, because there was no central agency to coordinate such enforcement. Especially since the 1990s, greed for higher profits in China’s booming market economy, combined with the lack of effective inspection and law enforcement, and the abandonment of public health and hygiene educational campaigns, have all contributed to the worsening situation of food safety. China is now reaping the consequences. More than 30,000 people were reported to have died from food poisoning in China in 2001 and 2002."

I mean, that's the real world. That's what happens when "no central agency" allows a "booming market economy" to find its own way.

Here's an alternative to strict or capricious enforcement - Instead of laws create a set of best practices. The inspectors could then assign a letter grade that would be prominently displayed. Provide comprehensive inspection results on a central website. With that information each consumer could make a choice. As a believer in germ theory, I'd probably steer clear of places that didn't get an A.

As for lemonade stands, provide a printable ("Not Inspected") sign that could be displayed by vendors grossing less than $10K a year (pick a number).

All it takes is a little creativity on the part of government. Unfortunately, there's little incentive for this to happen...

It's not a straw man, it's a reductio ad absurdum, and one that effectively points out the problem with your argument (in my view).

My argument was that we should have health and food safety regulations. That is a straw man? Or have you turned yourself around?

Then your argument is idiotic because you are arguing with no one

This was a pretty funny morning. People bit my heels with lines like "you’re an OCD germaphobe" and "You probably like your burgers well-done".

Why? Just because I think food safety is an appropriate concern for government.

You're an idiot. On multiple occasions people have explained to you the difference between no regulation and optimal regulation and like the moronic bern-out troll you are, you are incapable of applying new information to your tired, pathetic drivel. Be gone toad.

"like the moronic bern-out troll you are ..."

I think it is rather obvious who is the troll here.

greed for higher profits in China’s booming market economy, combined with the lack of effective inspection and law enforcement, and the abandonment of public health and hygiene educational campaigns

So you're just going to ignore all of the factors quoted in *your own evidentiary support* that don't prove your point?

That's funny, Bill. Put italics on half the "and" clause and claim that's all there was.

Au contraire--I'm not the one trying to reduce an outcome dependent on multiple codependent variables to a single cause.

"More than 30,000 people were reported to have died from food poisoning in China in 2001 and 2002.”

Fifteen thousand people die per year in China from food poisoning out of a population of over 1 billion. But maybe one is too many. Close down those Chinese lemonade stands.

And 3000 per year die in the U.S. despite regulations that are much more rigorously enforced. This works out to a very similar rate of food poisoning deaths between the U.S. and China.

I should also probably point out the error of those thinking that the health of people (ie "my family") who have an established (symbiotic) relationship with a particular group of pathogens is acceptable evidence that my hygiene is "sufficient" to minimize health effects of the unresistant public, if said public is exposed to large doses of said pathogens. The logical fallacy is essentially equivalent to saying that since the strain of TB I am carrying is not harmful TO ME, cough, cough, it won't harm anyone else. God gave us brains, it's a shame they aren't always used productively.

Basically, when your theory of government cannot work with a germ theory of disease, it might be the former that needs review.

Werent you just admonishing a commenter on straw manning?

If your theory of government says that you shouldn't have a health department, that it should be worked out between individuals, then you probably are not incorporating germ theory into your beliefs.

Straw man.

It's possible to oppose overly burdensome regulation while still thinking there should be some level of regulation. I doubt many of the people here oppose all food regulations.

Also it's possible to oppose government regulation in this area completely while still believing in the germ theory of disease. Evidence suggests that totally unregulated home prepared food is pretty safe, despite germ theory still being operative in the home.

Point out above where you, or anyone taking the "good side" in your fight supported "reasonable regulation."

It was all up to me, wasn't it?

Thus it always was, really. Just like people fight "environmentalists" while expecting their air to be clean, their water to be pure. They think that can be the anti-regulation voice in a confrontational system and get all the benefit. They think they never have to agree with any of the laws protecting them.

These regulations hit the poor hardest.

I can afford to help my kids get an occupational license. Lots of people can't, especially if they are trying to string a bunch of side jobs together to raise a family.

Why is there so much opposition to people working?


You staked out an extreme position that his regulation in particular is good and essential and we have to trust cops to enforce it only on the bad guys. Then you turn a classic motte and bailey tactic, retreating to your bailey and proclaiming you were the only one protecting any level of regulation at all!

There are no straw men here!

Straw men are illegal.

Straw men are highly flammable and provide nests for vermin.

@anon, in our discussion above I stated that food regulations should be kept to the minimum necessary for safety and should be required to pass a cost-benefit test. This is obviously not an argument against all regulation, and it further implies that some level of regulation is good. I don't see anybody else making argument against all regulation, either.

Yet you have consistently ignored this and pretended that anyone questioning these specific government regulations must oppose all regulation and, not only that, but oppose scientific theory about germs. This is the very definition of a straw man argument.

You probably like your burgers well-done.

I eat all kinds of weird food, but I think LA and Orange County health inspectors do give me a safety net.

Instead of selling lemonade to make a buck,

And, since pharmacy regulations, for example, are

Insidious REGULATIONS, as well,

They should be selling

Street Drugs.

Last time I talked about regulation I pointed this out...

There's a huge difference between a town that automatically tickets everyone who goes 1mph or more over the speed limit and the town that only tickets people when they are 'seriously' over the speed limit. Most people would rather have a speed limit of 55, say, and tickets only happening 5% of the time than a speed limit of 65 with 100% enforcement.

You cannot talk sensibly about regulation without considering enforcement to be part of that discussion. You can have a lot of regulations around eating establishments but an unwritten 'understanding' that a lemonade stand that's going to go up for a few hours or a day or two and then disappear will simply be ignored and ultimately that is probably better than trying to write a set of additional regulations to 'ease up' on the kids while at the same time not providing a bunch of loopholes for businesses to ride through.

Im going to guess that you are white, right? Ill bet you have never dealt with police that truly view you as the enemy.

In this case we are not talking about doctrinal libertarians hypothetically suggesting that food safety regulation meant for regular food establishments might be applied to a kid's lemonade stand. These are regulations that the city of Austin is explicitly affirming is going to apply to kid's lemonade stand.

In contrast Northwest Arkansas does seem to leave it up inspector discretion.

If you go to the site you cited the regulations are pretty simple. The major one is that they don't want you to make the lemonade at home.

The solution is simple as well.

Give each person a glass of water, a pack of sugar, half a lemon, and tell them to squeeze.

You can't set up a table on your driveway per the department of transportation and you can't set it up on the lawn because it has to be on cleanable floor and a canopy has to be above the stand. I note in the picture has the sample stand on a lawn so maybe they won't enforce the cleanable floor part. Also they are only waiving permit and licensing fees for that one day as if a horde of kids regularly running lemonade stands without paying fees is going to undercut the regular food establishments.

Yeah real simple. You can't make lemonade at your lemonade stand that you are only allowed to operate on one specific day out of the year. Why not just make it real simple and say no lemonade stands?

Yeah, people in the US are all "lemonade stand libtards har har" when stories like this surface every year.

I find it difficult to eat Baby Greens out of the plastic bin Whole Foods assures me is triple washed. If you grew up where people just pull down their pants and take a dump wherever they feel like it, you would be soaking your green onions in a light bleach solution for 10 minutes yourself.

My mom taught us all pretty good food safety. But I am not convinced all the other moms around here did the same.

You eat bleach?

Bleach is used in industrial food processing all the time. At least that means they're probably washed most of the insecticides, fungicides, etc., away, at least the stuff on the surface.

Presumably the lemonade stands are obliged to collect sales tax, right?

There's a threshold for collecting sales taxes. I doubt they'll make it into the tens of grands.

What are the studies done either way on the cost-benefit of such application to bake sales and lemonade stands. In Maryland, I still see public bakesales by groups in front of foodstores; in neighboring Virginia, George Mason University did not allow students to sell home baked goods at a public event last fall.

A tough part ---when you get food poisoning or some communicable disease spread via poor food handling, you probably have a tough time figuring out where it came from, unless enough people get ill seriously enough they end up in the hospital so that the government can find the common link.

No one posted this?

Make life take the lemons back!

Suppose a "lemonade loophole" is allowed so children can open lemonade stands. You probably imagine some nice suburban neighborhood with charming rosy-faced children of middle-class families making a few extra dollars on weekends.

What is more likely is that thousands of children of immigrant families will be pressed into service working 16-hour shifts in sidewalk lemonade sweatshops, earning sub-minimum wages and out-competing any of the Norman Rockwell scenarios you might have entertained. They will be brought into more lucrative areas than their own neighborhoods in vans and picked up at 10PM after having made a whole twenty dollars over the course of the day. Their school work will surely suffer, study time being a luxury of the rich. Since there are no regulations enforcing hand-washing, well, soap is an expense they can't really afford anyway. Get your Hep C vaccinations and enjoy a nice tall cool one!

Like they say, if life hands you lemons, make lemonade. But if you don't have a whole lot of sugar, your lemonade is going to suck.

I can't tell if this is parody or not

When we were in Turkey visiting a park there were families selling food they made at home, or were assembling the food in the park.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Would you have purchased home made products -- prepared dishes, salads, perishable items sitting under the sun -- from the families in the park, or would you have passed.

I would purchase

If the good were inferior - that is, they made you sick - the family would quickly lose customers and simply not be there. The presence of many people making their living selling street food gives me some assurance as to safety.

At least as much as I would have vis a vis Chipotle

Would you purchase if they were Roma passing through?

Green Eggs and Ham - I could, I would, I should get a lunch from a bunch in Constantinople

I only buy deep fried food or fresh fruit that can be peeled from street vendors. Travelling 101. Or packaged processed snacks, but usually street vendors only have really crappy packaged foods because their clientele is poor.

I would only purchase if I saw other locals purchasing and eating on the spot too. If they're just targeting tourists, I would be wary.

I think if the state were to maintain the active police force they might want for times of turbulence, it would be better to have them spending 50% of their time doing food safety, etc., inspections instead of harassing people over BS. I would qualify harassing children over lemonade stands to be BS. But, the suggestion I make would also probably lead to better "beat knowledge" sort of stuff.

Austin is, of course, the home of the University of Texas and populated with just the sort of people that abhor free markets.

I hate to tell all you Capitol-dwellers, but we're going to be just fine, Uber-shunning, stand-regulating, (fictitious) smoker-regulation and all. I congratulate you in your capacity for cognitive dissonance. The fact that you worry about regulations in friggin' Texas from Fairfax, VA. is quaint.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this is an aberration. The purpose of government (based on the opinions and actions of those in government) is to destroy everything by absorbing all the wealth and power until there is nothing left. So far government is winning.

Comments for this post are closed