Wednesday, May 29, 2013

You Can't Win For Losing...

You really can't. Last week, I posted a story about bars in New Jersey substituting rotgut for top shelf liquor, and was roundly pilloried for what was perceived as an acceptance of fraud. I believe McThag's actual comment was:
So, fraud is OK as long it's premium liquor and served at a TGIF in NJ?
Yesterday, I posted a story about Boston pizza joints getting busted for delivering pies after closing hours, and posted this:
And, since it apparently needs to be said, yes, they stayed open past their stated hours, the hours that they were permitted to be opened. They should face a fine or other type of sanction.
Because, you know, I didn't want to be accused of condoning law-breaking, you see. Well, that prompted this comment from Randy:
And I'm a little disappointed at your seeming acceptance of this intrusion, maybe you've lived up there too long. 
So, which is it? Do I condone fraud, or slavishly follow the rules? It gets confusing trying to follow which side of the fence folks think I'm on. I'm apparently a lawless rule-breaker and a law-abiding goody-goody at the same time. Cool!

Or maybe I'm just a snarky bastard who ridicules both stupid laws and stupid people?

That is all.


wizardpc said...

Huge difference in those two, Jay.

In the first, people are thinking they are buying product A, but instead getting lower-quality product B. That's immoral, no matter what the law says.

In the second, Customer is paying for a service, the service is provided, and everyone is happy. Except the government.

In the first, customers are harmed. In the second, they aren't.

That's the difference.

Jay G said...

No, in the second instance, the company is breaking the law - the permitting regulations under which they are allowed to operate as a business.

In both cases, a law is being broken. In the first, it's fraud. In the second, it's hours of operation.

The only reason I said anything in the second case was because of the reaction to the first.

bluesun said...

People are jerks--businesses ripping off customers, government punishing businesses for doing business, bloggers for making fun things, and commenters for being self-righteous.

C'est la vie!

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

One law is consumer protection by disallowing the presentation of a product as something it is not. A law against lying.

The other law is a restraint of trade.

The first is a enforcement of an implied contract and is just, the other is just government meddling and tyranny, interfering between the exchange of two willing parties and is unjust. The use of the government to protect a cartel under the color of law.

Anonymous said...

A wicked snaky bastd!

Isn't that what you say up there?


Cormac said...

I figure the fraud is wrong, but if you can't tell the difference, you're kind of an idiot for paying extra...learn your liquor before you pay out the nose for it.

The requirement to have permitted business hours is BS, but it's the law.
Unless it was an act of civil disobedience, they're just trying to get away with something they should have known was illegal.

If they recognize it as wrong, are they taking part in any action to call attention to it and get it repealed (right, good luck getting a pack of MAsshole politicians to repeal a law!)? If they haven't been, they should be now!

It's a whole lot of stupid and wrong in both cases...
Get the law pulled, sue and fine Fridays, and hopefully everybody will walk away having learned something of value (not likely).

Anonymous said...

But but but, Jay, yer wrong.....

I thought you'd realized that since you are married. I know I learned that lesson long ago while married.

People will pick things to be pissed about based on this inaccurate communication method called "language".

Some people are pissed because you aren't goring the right oxen. Some people are pissed because they are mean SOBs. Some people are pissed because they need another hobby.

Joseph in IL
(note, some statements made toungue in cheek)

Jay G said...

Heh. I just find it interesting is all. Doesn't bother me in the least. I believe what I believe, and that's what matters to me.

It's just interesting what folks read into things is all...

Angus McThag said...

Snarky bastard who ridicules stupid people?

Dammit, Jay, you haven't ridiculed THIS stupid person.

I demand to be ridiculed!

TigerStripe said...

Substituting vodka or scotch with rubbing alcohol is wrong regardless of any law or regulation. Operating after hours permitted is neutral but may be unlawful or violation of a regulation.
Ignorance is no excuse for a law - Tam


Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

The difference between the two is malum in se vs. malum prohibitum.

The fraud is bad on its own merits, because it's the business stealing money from the customer. The customer is harmed by the loss of money due to misrepresentation for something they wouldn't normally pay that much for.

A business staying open beyond the permitted hours is only "bad" because the government says it's bad. There is no harm to anything if they sell a pizza at 3:01 am vs. at 2:59 am.

Malum prohibitum laws are immoral, and should be removed whenever they are found.

Ross said...

New Jovian Thunderbolt said:
The first is a enforcement of an implied contract and is just, the other is just government meddling and tyranny, interfering between the exchange of two willing parties and is unjust. The use of the government to protect a cartel under the color of law.

Cartel? What cartel does restrictions on how late a pizza can be delivered protect? The frozen pizza industry?