here's a classic example of what thugs and busy-bodies do when they gain centralized power. in san fransisco, rules have been enacted by the local city crime syndicate (government) to regulate what they call "formula businesses". the point is that these people in the government, who don't own any of the businesses in question, have a vision of how the community they parasitize should look and feel. so, because they claim the right to rule over others, they use force to coerce business owners into complying with their wishes. below is a snippet of the rules after which i will point out all of the criminal idiocy contained therein.
from the "New Rules Project" website:
(9) The increase of formula retail businesses in the City's neighborhood commercial areas, if not monitored and regulated, will hamper the City's goal of a diverse retail base with distinct neighborhood retailing personalities comprised of a mix of businesses. Specifically, the unregulated and unmonitored establishment of additional formula retail uses may unduly limit or eliminate business establishment opportunities for smaller or medium-sized businesses, many of which tend to be non-traditional or unique, and unduly skew the mix of businesses towards national retailers in lieu of local or regional retailers, thereby decreasing the diversity of merchandise available to residents and visitors and the diversity of purveyors of merchandise.
(10) If, in the future, neighborhoods determine that the needs of their Neighborhood Commercial Districts are better served by eliminating the notice requirements for proposed formula retail uses, by converting formula retail uses into conditional uses in their district, or by prohibiting formula retail uses in their district, they can propose legislation to do so.
(b) Formula Retail Use. Formula retail use is hereby defined as a type of retail sales activity or retail sales establishment which, along with eleven or more other retail sales establishments located in the United States, maintains two or more of the following features: a standardized array of merchandise, a standardized facade, a standardized decor and color scheme, a uniform apparel, standardized signage, a trademark or a servicemark.
there you have it. one group of people forcing their arbitrary will onto others through the implied threat of violence. basically these folks are telling peaceful business owners that they must comply with their wishes or be subjected to force and that the people of the city can't do business with those they wish to do business with. they believe, in their infinite wisdom, that their vision of the "community" is the right one and everyone else is wrong. let's keep in mind that if these businesses are here and surviving, then it must be the will of said community to have them there in such a capacity. if the community, or at least a part of it didn't prefer these establishments, then they couldn't survive. but aren't they driving smaller, local businesses out? maybe, but only those who can't compete and again, we have to remember that these businesses are necessarily supported by the community in which they are located. if they are driving out smaller businesses, then it must be because the residents of the area find in them greater value and, consequently, greater quality of life.
governments love to twist and misrepresent language. they do this most often to buoy the veil of their legitimacy and the san francisco government is no exception. notice how they use the phrase, "the City":
(9) The increase of formula retail businesses in the City's neighborhood commercial areas, if not monitored and regulated, will hamper the City's goal of a diverse retail base with distinct neighborhood retailing personalities comprised of a mix of businesses.they do this to try to conflate themselves (the government) with the people they hurt as if they are the same group. what it really means, though, is that it is not "the city's" goal (as if an entire city of diverse individuals could have a single goal), but it is the blood-suckers in the government who have such a goal. it's clearly not the goal of the city of san francisco; if it was, then the businesses in question could not stay in business. no one would shop there. the city government wants it to appear that every one is in agreement on this issue and that they are merely carrying out the will of the city's residents when, in fact, they are clearly going against the will of the residents as well as the will of the businesses, both of which want nothing more than to do business together, peacefully.
far be it from a politician or bureaucrat to allow people to live their lives in peace! they can only think, "we must be in their business 24 hours a day, forcing them to do things our way, because we are their rulers!" how sad and pathetic. pathetic that there are people out there like that and sad that they find a way to gain centralized state power.
this is the fundamental folly of government. it is often stated that if men were angels, then we wouldn't need government. i say that men are not angels, so we mustn't have government that will, of course, be controlled by men! my friend, steve labianca (a great advocate of libertarianism) says charlie manson was really bad. the things he did were gruesome and wrong - but what if he had gained the power of the state?
what if someone like charles manson had somehow gained control of, umm, i don't know, the chancellorship of germany in the 1930s, or the chairmanship of china in the 1950s, or the presidency of the united states in the 1860s? then you have a crime of a few tragic deaths transformed into the tragic deaths of tens of millions.
after all the economic collapses, the murderous wars, genocides, purges and poverty - at some point you have to ask, "is government worth it?"