Toby McCrae's son, James Krieder, less and less pumped about the $20 a stranger gave him.

Man Gives $100 To Kids at Lemonade Stand, Police Want to Talk to Him

A few days ago a man in Winnipeg walked up to a lemonade stand run by five kids and gave them five $20 bills. He also handed them a card of his. Here’s how it unfolded in the press. Toby McCrae, mom of one of the l’il lemonade entrepreneurs, heard from her son that:

“‘He gave $20 to each of us and he told us we could learn to not pay taxes,'” said McCrae. “I said, ‘That’s really weird.'”

Along with five $20 bills, the man also handed the boys a business card for an anti-tax website promising to educate members about their rights.

On the back of the card, written in blue pen, was a note about how to make money “with your own society.”

McCrae looked up the man’s website and immediately felt it was strange and unusual. She called Winnipeg police, took the money from the kids and asked them to shut down their stand.

Her son later saw the same man get into a white van a block away.

“I thought, ‘Well how cliché is that,'” said McCrae.

In fact, the white van was such a cliché that it turned out not to be true. As did the idea that this was anything more creepy than kids meeting an adult who considered them worth talking to — and perhaps opening their minds.

Recognizing that he was the man in this story, yesterday Marcel Bessette went to the press:

Bessette said he never got into a van and wants to set the record straight about the incident to put parents’ minds at ease.

“I don’t want them thinking there’s a predator in the neighbourhood when there’s not. I mean there might be but it’s not me,” he told CBC Monday.

Bessette is a member of the Peace Maker Society — a group that doesn’t believe in paying taxes — and said he simply wanted to spread that message while supporting the young entrepreneurs.

“I just walked up, told them it was for the lemonade stand, that I was proud for them for being entrepreneurs, that I’ve run stuff through my life and here’s 20 bucks each and a card so you guys can learn with your family.”

Now that that’s cleared up, we’re all done, right?

Of course not:

Winnipeg police spokesman Jay Murray said the incident is troubling and while not illegal, police want to talk to Bessette.

“It’s one thing for him to approach an adult and kind of communicate those beliefs, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for him to talk to minors about this,” he said.

“You can’t be doing this kind of thing.”

“This kid of thing” being…talking to kids? Supporting their initiative? Giving away one’s own money? Isn’t that basically what Santa does, year in and year out?

As painful as it may be to learn, here is today’s lesson: Sometimes people are just plain nice, weird as that may sound. And sometimes weirdos are just plain nice.

The police do not need to be involved in any child-adult interaction that is not illegal and not nefarious. Go chase a real criminal.  – L.

.

Toby McCrae’s son, James Krieder, seemingly less and less pumped about the $20 each a stranger gave him and his four lemonade stand entrepreneurs. (This photo was provided to the CBC by McCrae.)

.

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

97 Responses to Man Gives $100 To Kids at Lemonade Stand, Police Want to Talk to Him

  1. Wendy Elizabeth Hart April 18, 2017 at 9:29 am #

    “Go chase a real criminal.”

    Yes! <3

  2. Edward Hafner April 18, 2017 at 9:34 am #

    If anyone has started an internet funding campaign to replace the $20 each kid received please post the link here and I will gladly contribute.

  3. BL April 18, 2017 at 9:34 am #

    ‘“Go chase a real criminal.”

    Yes! <3'

    But … but … real criminals can be dangerous!

  4. Jessica April 18, 2017 at 9:37 am #

    The police don’t have enough to do, clearly. Obviously the guy has terrible social judgement– why would you try to convince little kids not to pay taxes (when they don’t pay taxes anyway)? But if there were more rapes and murders in Winnipeg, the police could earn their keep by chasing down the offenders rather than spending an afternoon interrogating a weirdo.

  5. Powers April 18, 2017 at 9:37 am #

    Okay, nothing worth getting the police involved with but anti-tax zealots are inherently creepy, especially when they’re promoting their views to kids.

  6. M April 18, 2017 at 9:42 am #

    “I don’t think it’s appropriate for him to talk to minors about this,”

    Taxes? Why not?

    Let’s be realistic. Every day, kids are bombarded with information from a variety of sources. TV, movies, billboards, teachers, coaches, video games, magazines, peers. This man didn’t do anything other than be a generous soul who was rewarding kids for their entrepreneurship. Which they learned from somebody. Cuz the idea of kids and a lemonade stand is an old one.

  7. Jess April 18, 2017 at 9:48 am #

    Personally, I wish someone had explained taxes a little more to me before getting my first paycheck…

  8. Beth April 18, 2017 at 9:57 am #

    @M, so true. And those messages can be worse than any discussion about tax avoidance.

    Why did the mom lie about the white van? That’s what I’d like to know.

  9. Donna April 18, 2017 at 9:58 am #

    “why would you try to convince little kids not to pay taxes (when they don’t pay taxes anyway)?”

    Not yet, but they will one day. One could also say “why would you talk to kids about cars since they don’t currently drive cars.” I wasn’t aware that our conversations with children needed to be limited only to things they are doing right now and cannot include things that they are not currently doing but will definitely do in the future.

    And can we stop referring to school age children as “little kids.” The kids were 10, not preschoolers.

  10. LGB April 18, 2017 at 10:04 am #

    Yea, unless things have changed drastically since 2012, I’d say that Winnipeg police have much bigger fish to fry. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/latest-numbers-crown-winnipeg-canada-murder-capital-214530106.html

  11. LGB April 18, 2017 at 10:05 am #

    @Donna

    “And can we stop referring to school age children as “little kids.” The kids were 10, not preschoolers.”

    It’s to be expected in a culture that refers to young adults at universities as “college kids.”

  12. Andrew April 18, 2017 at 10:12 am #

    They were selling lemonade, and someone gave them some money far in excess of the cost of the drinks. Almost as if they might have been trying to raise some money, rather than running a small beverage retail business. How very odd.

    We can’t have people talking to children about their rights, can we. Just think where that might lead.

  13. Marie April 18, 2017 at 10:17 am #

    Obviously the guy has terrible social judgement– why would you try to convince little kids not to pay taxes (when they don’t pay taxes anyway)?

    The kids showed the card to the mom; she looked at the website. That is fairly successful advertising. It would have been more successful if she had looked and said, “Wow! Great point!”…but how many other people will go look at the site now?

  14. Dienne April 18, 2017 at 10:17 am #

    “Okay, nothing worth getting the police involved with but anti-tax zealots are inherently creepy, especially when they’re promoting their views to kids.”

    Well said. Incidentally, if these people don’t believe in paying taxes, I hope they’re driving on their own roads, sending their kids to their own schools (at their own expense), not using public libraries, and I hope they never use Canada’s single-payer health care or any other government benefit.

  15. Papilio April 18, 2017 at 10:34 am #

    Isn’t not paying taxes illegal? So he’s encouraging kids to (grow up and) break the law??

    @Dienne: ““Okay, nothing worth getting the police involved with but anti-tax zealots are inherently creepy, especially when they’re promoting their views to kids.”

    Well said. Incidentally, if these people don’t believe in paying taxes, I hope they’re driving on their own roads, sending their kids to their own schools (at their own expense), not using public libraries, and I hope they never use Canada’s single-payer health care or any other government benefit”

    This. Et cetera, et cetera. And don’t call 911 either.
    A few years ago I read something about rich people in Africa, who had all the luxuries that *they* could buy with *their* money, for *themselves* (iPhones, TVs, laptops, expensive cars, the works) – but no indoor toilet, no running water, dirt roads without street lighting, etc. Paradise? I doubt it.

  16. James April 18, 2017 at 10:37 am #

    Wait–the police want to talk to the man because talking about politics with minors isn’t illegal, but can’t be done. The inherent contradiction is insane.

    Since when did the police become the arbiters of what political concepts we were allowed to discuss? And since when were children not allowed to have discussions on politics? There’s almost certainly an inherent bias against this person’s opinions operating here–I have no doubt the police wouldn’t even investigate a religious organization that gave $100 and a pamphlet about how Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. I know the police don’t get involved when churches do that in the USA, at least; if anything, it’s considered GOOD when churches do such things. So I’m pretty confident that the issue is that the police dislike the guy’s opinions, not his actions. And that’s dangerous.

    As for “anti-tax zealots are inherently creepy”: Get over it. Part of being in a civilized society means exposure to groups with different views than you. Just as you need to deal with the potential for illness or accident, you have to deal with people holding different views than you; it’s inherent in the nature of free societies. The only alternative is censorship, which has problems far worse than “Someone said something I disagree with”. Not that I expect anyone to listen, but I will point out that I AM NOT someone who opposes taxation.

  17. James April 18, 2017 at 10:44 am #

    “Isn’t not paying taxes illegal? So he’s encouraging kids to (grow up and) break the law??”

    No. At least, not necessarily. He’s encouraging a specific political agenda (ending taxation), but none of the people I’ve met who oppose taxation refuse to pay taxes or encourage others to do so. They all–bar none–have argued for changing the system, NOT in pointless grandstanding (which is what refusing to pay taxes would amount to).

    What they are doing is no different from arguing that we should have free college tuition for all. In both cases, the people have a specific vision of how they want the future to be, and are arguing in favor of it. And whether we agree or not (and please remember, I DISAGREE with the idea that taxation is inherently wrong), we must respect their rights to argue their opinions. That’s what “freedom of expression” means.

  18. Dienne April 18, 2017 at 10:46 am #

    Also, I’d argue against the idea that there was anything “just plain nice” about what this guy did. If he’d handed each kid a twenty and a Bible pamphlet, we’d recognize it as recruiting, and not terribly ethical recruiting either. Maybe not a matter for the police, but not “nice” either.

  19. James April 18, 2017 at 11:34 am #

    “If he’d handed each kid a twenty and a Bible pamphlet, we’d recognize it as recruiting, and not terribly ethical recruiting either. Maybe not a matter for the police, but not “nice” either.”

    Your experience is vastly different from mine. In my experience (in a half-dozen states in various regions in the country) being handed a religious pamphlet is considered a normal annoyance, along the level of a mosquito bite or a sock that doesn’t fit right–it happens, you throw out the pamphlet and move on. Any church that donated $100 to a kid’s lemonade stand would get a write-up in the local papers, pamphlet or no.

    That’s not to say I disbelieve you. Rather, I’m pointing out that there probably is regional variation, or variation between how individuals view such events.

  20. Papilio April 18, 2017 at 11:35 am #

    @James: Oh! Thanks, I get it now.

  21. James Pollock April 18, 2017 at 11:36 am #

    ““This kid of thing” being…talking to kids?”

    I’m pretty sure from context that “this kid[sic] of thing” the police are wanting to prevent him from talking to kids about is tax-dodging, which is an actual crime, and the people who do it are criminals. My second guess would be that they maybe suspect a scam (since, it IS possible to avoid paying taxes legally, through tricks that don’t necessarily make much sense to people who are neither accountants nor tax attorneys, and it is common for scammers to TELL people they’re legally paying no taxes, when in fact they are still liable for taxes.)

    In short, it is very likely that this gentleman is up to nefarious purposes and the police are legitimately interested in him and where his money goes.

    “The police do not need to be involved in any child-adult interaction that is not illegal and not nefarious. Go chase a real criminal”
    It’s entirely possible that this is what they are doing. Not a SEX criminal, just an ordinary financial criminal.
    It’s also possible that they’re chasing a fellow who just has fond memories of running a lemonade stand, and happened to have some money he didn’t need for something else.

  22. David April 18, 2017 at 11:46 am #

    While I don’t know Canada’s legal system, in my opinion, this man should refuse to talk to the police unless they have a warrant and reason to believe he committed a criminal act.

  23. Roger the Shrubber April 18, 2017 at 11:48 am #

    Powers and Dienne – You should contribute extra money to your tax agency including a note that you would like a safe space constructed in your community where nobody says anything that would challenge your preconceived notions of the goodness of all government spending.

    Gov’t schooling – so good it’s mandatory
    Social Security – so good it’s mandatory
    Gov’t Health Care – so good it’s mandatory

  24. James Pollock April 18, 2017 at 11:56 am #

    “‘Isn’t not paying taxes illegal? So he’s encouraging kids to (grow up and) break the law??’
    No. At least, not necessarily. He’s encouraging a specific political agenda (ending taxation), but none of the people I’ve met who oppose taxation refuse to pay taxes or encourage others to do so.”

    Google “sovereign citizen”. There are, in fact, people who oppose taxation who refuse to pay taxes and encourage others to do so, and their vexatiousness doesn’t end there.

    It’s not illegal to talk to children. But some things you can say to children are illegal.

  25. Dienne April 18, 2017 at 12:05 pm #

    Roger – if you don’t want to contribute to society, that’s fine, but don’t turn around and benefit from it. Give up your indoor plumbing. Don’t use roads. Don’t call the police, fire department or ambulance. Don’t use any modern technology as most of that was developed by the government (as one example, the internet). As a matter of fact, you’re probably going to have to live in the wilderness, because anything you benefit from in civilization (towns/cities, etc.) was built, at least in part, by the big, bad gubmint (probably by people educated in gubmint schools). And if you don’t want gubmint health care, fine, don’t use it. But don’t turn around and expect the hospital to save your sorry ass and have the rest of us pay for it. If you can’t afford the $1,000,000+ bill, oh boo hoo. If you want to live in a gubmint-free zone, I’d suggest Ethiopia. Something tells me you couldn’t survive a week.

    If you really believe you’re in this all by yourself, man up and prove it. Otherwise, shut up and pay your fair share.

  26. Christopher Byrne April 18, 2017 at 12:22 pm #

    Where were the parents supervising this lemonade stand? Not there? Oh, the kids had some initiative, and a generous adult wanted to support it? Must be a criminal.

    The kids learned something important: If you’re going to set yourself up to interact with the public, you’re probably going to interact with the public. That includes people proselytizing for causes that may or may not be agreeable. But that doesn’t rise to the level of “suspicious.”

    And let’s call the “white van” what it was, a dramatic lie designed to trigger a reaction, garner attention and feed the specter of fear that plays well in the media. Seems to me that she’s the one in the wrong here. The guy who gave the kids money may have been weird, and his cause may not be practical or even widely accepted, but he wasn’t a liar.

    Which would you rather have modeled for your kids? Supporting a cause and putting your money behind it, or making stuff up to get more attention for you?

  27. John B. April 18, 2017 at 12:25 pm #

    “In short, it is very likely that this gentleman is up to nefarious purposes and the police are legitimately interested in him and where his money goes.”

    @James Pollock:

    I think you, and others here, might be reading into this James. This guy doesn’t believe in paying taxes. Right or wrong, it sounds as if he’s a big ambassador to that policy and is out to “educate” the masses about the evils of taxes and ways you can avoid paying them. So he sees a bunch of kids and what better way to educate the population than to start informing them when they’re young. We have people in the United States who don’t believe in paying taxes and think they’re not obligated to. In fact, I knew of a person like that at work years ago. I never talked to him about it but everybody else at work claimed that Bob didn’t believe in paying taxes. I personally believe this kind of thinking is illogical but people have some pretty weird viewpoints which they are perfectly entitled to promote in a Democracy such as Canada or the United States.

  28. bmommyx2 April 18, 2017 at 12:26 pm #

    Wow, it amazes me how crazy people get. I’m sure most freerangers tend to be outside of the box thinkers & have lost of unpopular opinions & ideas so we understand, but the majority of society seems the ring the alarm bell if you have a different way of thinking. Also this worst first thinking is just so out of control.

  29. Eric S April 18, 2017 at 12:35 pm #

    Like I always say, just because you have a badge, it doesn’t make you smart, or less paranoid. If that had been my son, I’d be giving him a high five. $20 for free. And I’d check out what the guy has to say myself. I’ve read in the past, that there is some truth about not needing to pay taxes. Some info coming from former employees of the IRS, who they themselves say they no longer pay taxes.

    When you look for something that isn’t there, you will eventually find it. ie. It’s all in your head.

  30. Roger the Shrubber April 18, 2017 at 12:40 pm #

    Dienne – I don’t know where you are from, but in the US it’s tax day today. Believe me, under threat of jail I have paid my share of taxes. I will leave it to others to bicker over whether or not my share was ‘fair.’

    You talk as if I truly have any choice in the matter. Please tell me how I can get a refund on my taxes for educating myself and my family. If I refuse to utilize and pay for police services can I legally investigate and prosecute those that have committed crimes against me? Am I a hypocrite because I utilize government services that I object to paying for yet am forced to pay for and am offered no legal alternative? I would gladly accept a refund for all I have paid into Social Security in exchange for not utilizing it. Yet you don’t give me that option and will then call me a hypocrite for collecting upon retirement.

    Dienne, there are a number of robust political philosophies that consider limits to the just use of political power and the role of government in our lives. It is question begging to consider all government intervention into our daily life a just and necessary thing. I encourage you to make an honest investigation into these alternative philosophies.

    Since you offer me a take-it-or-leave-it option, I will offer you the same. Give all of your money to the government and live your life only on what the government gives you. Otherwise, shut up and accept that others may disagree with you on the grandeur and beneficence of every government expenditure and the role of government .

  31. James Pollock April 18, 2017 at 12:40 pm #

    “I think you, and others here, might be reading into this James.”

    It’s possible. It’s also possible that YOUR assumptions are clouding things.
    You hear that this fellow doesn’t believe in paying taxes, and picture a “tea party” type, rather than the sovereign citizen type.
    The biggest clue, I think, is in the last line of the second article that Ms. Skenazy linked to, which is “Murray said Bessette is known to police and officers are still trying to find him to talk about the incident.”

    Also, I don’t know if the “related stories” linked in the left column are the same for everybody. But I get two different “related stories” about the “Freemen on the land”, a term worth Googling.

    I don’t know if this gentleman has THAT kind of anti-tax beliefs. But I think the cops are correct that they have the authority to prevent THAT kind of legal misinformation from being given to kids, and thus, investigating exactly what kind of anti-tax beliefs he’s advocating to these kids, if any, is a valid police concern. It’s pretty far down the list, but it’s ON the list.

  32. Workshop April 18, 2017 at 12:47 pm #

    Dienne, why should anyone give up indoor plumbing? That’s been paid for by the person owning the building.

    The pipes that deliver the water to my house are owned by the Hill Water Corporation. The check I write is to that entity, not a government overseer.

    Modern technology . . . the type that’s made by Apple and IBM and GE?

    I must be missing something. Apple can’t make me buy an Ipad. But Indiana is making me buy a new highway.

    Now, as for the subject of the post . . . Lots of stupid all around.
    1) Guy not understanding his target audience.
    2) Mom raising the situation to the police. I’ll say mom because dad likely isn’t in the picture, because dads would say “get over it.”
    3) The police saying anything other than “Yah, not really a crime, eh?”

    The natural response to all this should be that Winnipeg comes down like a metric tonne of bricks on these little hooligans for trying to sell lemonade without an approved business license. No doubt they were trying to skirt the laws surrounding a non-profit organization’s tax-exempt status. Probably didn’t have the appropriate health permits either.

  33. Dienne April 18, 2017 at 12:47 pm #

    “Please tell me how I can get a refund on my taxes for educating myself and my family.”

    As soon as you tell me how I can get a refund for all the wars I don’t want us involved in.

    Here’s the thing. Taxes are the price we pay for living in a society. You may not agree with everything that taxes get spent on, and it’s certainly your right to argue what public money should be spent on. But once the decisions are made and laws are passed, it’s not your right to pick and choose. We as a society have decided what we value. Education for all people, not just people who can pay for it, is one of those things, for instance. Even if public money didn’t pay for your education or your children’s education, you still benefit from public education in many, many ways. (Much moreso, in fact, than I benefit from bombing brown people all over the world.) If you have that much of an issue on what your society has chosen to spend money on, you are free to find a different society that may be more in line with your values.

  34. Dienne April 18, 2017 at 12:50 pm #

    “Dienne, why should anyone give up indoor plumbing? That’s been paid for by the person owning the building.”

    Oh good heavens, are you that ignorant? Do you think municipal water systems just build themselves? Then why does my town have a Water Department? Water delivery is a government operation because only the government is large enough to manage pipe installation and maintenance and other aspects of delivery and service.

    But hey, the way Trump is going, water delivery will probably be privatized within a couple years and then we’ll see just how evil the gubmint is compared to private corporations. On an average person’s salary, you might be able to afford a shower once a month (if you give up washing your dishes, maybe). Be careful what you ask for.

  35. Dienne April 18, 2017 at 12:52 pm #

    “Give all of your money to the government….”

    Incidentally, Roger, who’s advocating that? Certainly not me. Pay what you owe. Period.

  36. James Pollock April 18, 2017 at 1:00 pm #

    “You talk as if I truly have any choice in the matter.”
    You do. It’s possible to arrange your life so as to pay little to no taxes… most people, however, dislike the requirements for doing so.
    For example, one can avoid the income tax through the simple mechanism of not having much in the way of income. And, of course, estates under like $10 million don’t pay estate taxes, so you could go that route.
    “I don’t like my choices” is not the same thing as “I have no choice”.

    “Please tell me how I can get a refund on my taxes for educating myself and my family”
    Well, it’s deductible on your federal income tax return, but you have to itemize. It’s actually built in to the standard deduction if you don’t itemize. Yes, that’s only a partial refund.
    You can also reduce or avoid education taxes by not owning property. Your kids still get educated by the state, even though you aren’t paying any property tax.

    Approximately 0.00% of the population likes paying taxes. Approximately 99.999% of the population can identify something the government buys with tax revenue that they, the individual taxpayer, does not approve of, although of course they don’t all agree on exactly what those items may be. In other news, death is coming for you, too, eventually.

  37. Roger the Shrubber April 18, 2017 at 1:06 pm #

    Water delivery is a government operation because only the government is large enough to manage pipe installation and maintenance and other aspects of delivery and service.
    You may want to investigate the recent Flint water crisis to disabuse you of the unique expertise of governmental organizations as they relate to water distribution. Perhaps evil corporations may have done a better job knowing the financial ruin that would be their’s would they let this happen.

    You may not agree with everything that taxes get spent on, and it’s certainly your right to argue what public money should be spent on.
    Directly contradicted by:
    If you have that much of an issue on what your society has chosen to spend money on, you are free to find a different society that may be more in line with your values.

  38. Roger the Shrubber April 18, 2017 at 1:11 pm #

    JP – why is reducto ad absurdum your favorite rhetorical device? It’s not a very compelling or intelligent argument to propose that one can avoid paying takes by killing themselves.

  39. J- April 18, 2017 at 1:24 pm #

    The cops have to crack down on the guy. Their salary comes from taxes. You can’t expect them to sit idly by and let some kooky libertarian teat these kids that taxation is theft. How are they supposed to afford their military surplus tanks and machine guns without taxes.

  40. Jason April 18, 2017 at 1:26 pm #

    Like the Unabomber decrying government, but writing to a government-funded agency for help in eradicating rats from his “cabin”.

    As for the Bible pamphlets being a routine annoyance, I wonder what the reaction to being handed some verses from the Quran would be?

  41. James Pollock April 18, 2017 at 1:30 pm #

    “You may want to investigate the recent Flint water crisis to disabuse you of the unique expertise of governmental organizations as they relate to water distribution”

    Public entities can use the power of eminent domain to obtain easements to run water pipes across people’s properties, and of course, already owns the property under publicly-owned streets and sidewalks. This gives the city, county, or special taxing district a natural monopoly. Depending on the state, there may or may not be specific water rights law to deal with, as well as treaty rights with the Native Americans.
    You may or may not have “expertise” in your local water system. Public systems are neither more nor less prone to problems. Both can run afoul of stupidity, short-sightedness, and the like.

    Bottled water is a choice, although expensive, and some people live entirely off-the-grid using captured precipitation, if your local water system is not run in your preferred manner.

    “why is reducto ad absurdum your favorite rhetorical device?”
    I dunno. Why do you continually seize on one example of several given as if it were the entirety of the argument?

  42. Roger the Shrubber April 18, 2017 at 1:38 pm #

    Jason – The Nation of Islam folks regularly distribute their newsletter and solicit donations in some areas of my city. I seem to be able to politely decline and I have never heard of them having the kinds of issues you are imagining.

  43. Mike April 18, 2017 at 1:55 pm #

    Ah yes, the terrifying white van.

    I dislike white vans for a different reason: On twisty back roads, they are difficult to pass and almost never pull over. Grrr!

  44. Roger the Shrubber April 18, 2017 at 2:08 pm #

    JP – each point you make is a rhetorical fallacy

    1) one can avoid the income tax through the simple mechanism of not having much in the way of income REDUCTO AD ABSURDUM

    2) “Please tell me how I can get a refund on my taxes for educating myself and my family”
    Well, it’s deductible on your federal income tax return, but you have to itemize.
    NON SEQUITUR – a blog comment is not a Master’s thesis. Yes, you are addressing my exact words, but in context it is obvious that I am referring to the school taxes that I pay regardless of how I educate myself or my children.

    3) You can also reduce or avoid education taxes by not owning property You are avoiding the essence of the argument by QUESTION BEGGING and presenting a FALSE DICHOTOMY – On what principle is real property a basis of taxation? Why must I choose between owning property and paying taxes. Is ownership of property a fundamental right? If so, why must one pay taxes in order to exercise it?

    4) Why do you continually seize on one example of several given as if it were the entirety of the argument? ‘The pot calling the kettle black’ is not a rhetorical fallacy so I will not capitalize it. At least I refrain from going on long winded hypotheticals of dubious relevance to the topic at hand.

  45. Workshop April 18, 2017 at 2:17 pm #

    Dienne, apparently I”m not ignorant enough to think that indoor plumbing was the province of government as opposed to the guy who built my house.

    I’ll attend a public school and see if I can remedy my intelligence.

    Or I could watch five minutes of Dancing with the Stars. That ought to kill a few brain cells.

  46. pentamom April 18, 2017 at 2:32 pm #

    “why would you try to convince little kids not to pay taxes (when they don’t pay taxes anyway)”

    If kids spend their money, they pay sales taxes. In theory, if they make money at anything over $6300 in a year, or over $1050 in passive income, they’re supposed to file a tax return though they won’t owe anything unless they earn significantly more than that.

    “Kids don’t pay taxes” is not a true statement; “most kids don’t pay income taxes” is.

    Besides what everyone said — they’re going to grow up someday, and generally it’s considered a good idea to teach kids things *before* they’re grown up. Now we may or may not agree with what this guy is trying to teach, but the fact that he’s trying to pass on his ideas is 100% unproblematic unless he’s directly trying to involve them in something illegal.

  47. pentamom April 18, 2017 at 2:35 pm #

    Dienne — municipal water still has nothing to do with INDOOR plumbing. All you get from municipal water is the ability to connect to it. To actually get the plumbing indoors, in your house, you have to pay someone to put in pipes, and you have to maintain those pipes yourself.

    Now if you meant, “Want to give up access to the water supply,” that would have been accurate. But that’s not indoor plumbing.

    Also, many, many people have indoor and outdoor plumbing without government involvement because they have wells.

  48. SKL April 18, 2017 at 2:37 pm #

    OK, I think the guy sounds weird, but maybe he just wanted to make the kids feel a little important after having a nice conversation with them.

    I could understand asking the boys if the money was in exchange for anything and remind the kids that they don’t go off anywhere (in a house, car, backyard, etc) with anyone their parents don’t approve.

    People do use money to groom kids. Some people also give money to kids because they are nice. It does seem odd for a person to part with $100 just on a whim like that. It would raise red flags for me as a mom.

    But, I would not call the police unless there was something more. Like, the guy gave the boys money and then told them to come to ___ and he’d give them more.

    I was groomed with money, so it isn’t just a crazy thought ….

  49. pentamom April 18, 2017 at 2:39 pm #

    Also, I don’t know how it works everywhere, but in every place I’ve ever lived, the water supply was government operated, but it was not actually paid for by taxes (neither the supply of the water nor the infrastructure.) It was paid for by fees paid by those who used the water.

  50. pentamom April 18, 2017 at 2:41 pm #

    It’s also a fallacy that you avoid education real estate taxes by not owning property. If you pay rent, part of that rent is calculated to cover the taxes your landlord must pay. He is not paying out of his piggybank, birthday money from Grandma, of the goodness of his heart. He is collecting the taxes from his tenants and passing them on.

  51. JTW April 18, 2017 at 2:55 pm #

    “Also, many, many people have indoor and outdoor plumbing without government involvement because they have wells.”

    Which in many places are taxed. Either because you need a permit to strike and/or operate one (yes…) or because the government bills you for the water you take out at a rate roughly similar to what you’d pay to a government run utility company (and no, they don’t use water meters for that, they “estimate” what you’re expected to use based on the composition of your household (number of adults, children, pets, etc.).

  52. James Pollock April 18, 2017 at 2:55 pm #

    “JP – each point you make is a rhetorical fallacy”
    This is factually incorrect, and also evasive.

    “1) one can avoid the income tax through the simple mechanism of not having much in the way of income REDUCTO AD ABSURDUM”
    No, it isn’t. A good many people choose this approach. For example, religious professionals who take a vow of poverty. People who choose careers which are rewarding in spirit, but not so much in money. Some people choose to retire, intentionally taking a smaller income.
    And, in any case, Reductio ad absurdum isn’t a rhetorical fallacy.

    “2) “Please tell me how I can get a refund on my taxes for educating myself and my family”
    Well, it’s deductible on your federal income tax return, but you have to itemize. NON SEQUITUR – a blog comment is not a Master’s thesis. Yes, you are addressing my exact words, but in context it is obvious that I am referring to the school taxes that I pay regardless of how I educate myself or my children.”
    Which is why I gave an answer that referred to the school taxes that you pay to educate yourself and your children. K-12 and JC/Community Colleges are funded primarily through property taxes; they may also be partially funded by sales or income taxes at the state level. Property taxes, income taxes paid to states, and sales taxes paid to states are all deductible from your federal income tax.
    You find a direct answer to your exact question to be a “NON SEQUITUR”… that speaks to your mental faculties, not mine.

    “3) You can also reduce or avoid education taxes by not owning property You are avoiding the essence of the argument by QUESTION BEGGING and presenting a FALSE DICHOTOMY – On what principle is real property a basis of taxation?”
    Oops. This is you engaging in rhetorical fallacy… in this case “MOVING THE GOALPOSTS”.
    You’re welcome to offer an argument that property taxation shouldn’t exist… knock yourself out! But that wasn’t the question you actually asked. You asked about how you could avoid education taxes, and that’s the question I answered. I’m sorry (sort of) that you don’t like the answer.

    (PS: “Is ownership of property a fundamental right?” no. There is no such thing.)

    “4) Why do you continually seize on one example of several given as if it were the entirety of the argument? (no answer given)”

    Yes. So… of the three alleged “rhetorical fallacies” you accuse me of, one is not a fallacy at all, and two are incorrectly labeled, and one is answered with a rhetorical fallacy. The actual question asked was not answered.

    It’s been fun playing, but I’d rather play against someone who understands the rules.

  53. Beth April 18, 2017 at 3:15 pm #

    OMG James STFU.

  54. James Pollock April 18, 2017 at 3:23 pm #

    “If kids spend their money, they pay sales taxes”
    Unless, of course, there are no sales taxes to pay.

    “Now if you meant, “Want to give up access to the water supply,” that would have been accurate. But that’s not indoor plumbing.”
    The key ingredient to “indoor plumbing” isn’t the water coming in. It’s the water going out.

    “Also, I don’t know how it works everywhere, but in every place I’ve ever lived, the water supply was government operated, but it was not actually paid for by taxes”
    I have both. I pay for fresh water into my house, and sewage removed from my house, by fees based on usage. But there’s also a tax for stormwater drainage.

    “It’s also a fallacy that you avoid education real estate taxes by not owning property. If you pay rent, part of that rent is calculated to cover the taxes your landlord must pay.”

    Except that’s not actually how it works. Property tax is an expense of owning rental property. It’s paid by the owner of the property, not the tenant.

    Rent is a price. Prices in a free market are NOT set by the expenses of the supplier. They’re set at the intersection of supply and demand.

    And, finally, owning property and renting property are not the only two options.

  55. James Pollock April 18, 2017 at 3:25 pm #

    “OMG James STFU”

    thank you for this witty and charming contribution. I shall frame it and keep it where I can always refer to it, and give it all the attention it deserves!

  56. Heartfruit April 18, 2017 at 3:30 pm #

    I don’t know why the police might want to talk with him but I can gues why CRA might.

  57. Roger the Shrubber April 18, 2017 at 3:47 pm #

    “OMG James STFU”

    Like asking the sun not to rise.

  58. James Pollock April 18, 2017 at 3:51 pm #

    “Like asking the sun not to rise”

    Moving on to the ad hom ALREADY?
    Wish I could say I was surprised…

  59. lollipoplover April 18, 2017 at 3:52 pm #

    My kids have had lemonade stands for years (we live off a golf course, lots of thirsty customers). When setting up such a stand that serves the public, it’s accepted they will serve those they may not agree with or even understand. Last year, my 12 year-old daughter was asked if she had any cold beer for sale by a male golfer which at first I thought was weird and not *right*, but then I saw that the used golf balls they were displaying were in a Corona box. Oops, honest mistake, dude.

    Since when can we control what other people say to our children? A nice family of Jehovah’s Witnesses came through our neighborhood last week before Easter, dropped off a pamphlet (my daughter’s friend answered the door), and were polite and kind. We don’t have the same beliefs as they do, but a pamphlet or a business card isn’t so much weird on the part of the person giving it but in the warped perception that parents can somehow control every opinion/belief/philosophy that is not their own.

    Teacher you kids how to civilly handle a business card or pamphlet, smile politely, and toss in the recyclables after. Please don’t pass on your own personal paranoia and judgmental opinions of a generous customer with a business card that can easily be ignored. Sheesh.

  60. Roger the Shrubber April 18, 2017 at 4:01 pm #

    JP – An ad hominem would be me rejecting any new argument of your’s based on all the idiotic things you’ve said in the past. In this case it is a simile since I am addressing your personality defect and not any argument you are making.

  61. Roger the Shrubber April 18, 2017 at 4:07 pm #

    My boys sell golf balls to golfers. Asking if they have any beer for sale is a pretty common joke. It may be ‘inappropriate’ but no one truly expect them to be providing beer.

  62. SanityAnyone? April 18, 2017 at 4:14 pm #

    A stranger in a Philly CVS repeatedly threatened to break my 14-yr-old son’s arm if he did the irritating “dab” sign near him again, something he does with a grin 20 times a day. At first I thought it was a joke until I realized the guy was actually hostile.

    That is a weird thing that a weirdo adult should never say to a child.

    Talking about taxes or almost any PG-13 adult subject should be totally fine.

  63. Edward Hafner April 18, 2017 at 5:35 pm #

    Perhaps some folks above should follow this self descriptive link:

    http://www.wpbeginner.com/start-a-wordpress-blog/

  64. donald April 18, 2017 at 6:22 pm #

    “Why did the mom lie about the white van? That’s what I’d like to know.”

    I’m not sure that she did lie. It’s quite possible that she THOUGHT that she saw him in a white van.

    We’ve come a long ways since The Professor (from Gilligan’s Island) said, “Sometimes the eyes play tricks on you.” We’ve learned more about the brain in the last 5 years than we have in the last 500 years. This is why I go on (and on and on and on) about drama junky’s lust for entertainment and how hazardous it can be.

    There are many problems that arise from this. One of the theories is that the brain sometimes does a ‘copy and paste’. (like you do on computer) I’m sure that she saw a white van. The man may even have had the same color hair. The brain did a copy and past when it filled out the facial features.

  65. James Pollock April 18, 2017 at 6:28 pm #

    “I’m not sure that she did lie. It’s quite possible that she THOUGHT that she saw him in a white van.”

    Actually, we know for sure that she did not see him get into a white van. Nor did she claim she saw him get into a white van.

    How do I know this? Because:

    “Her son later saw the same man get into a white van a block away.”

  66. JP Merzetti April 18, 2017 at 6:53 pm #

    Aw shucks – it’s because it was kids, folks.
    Who gives a righteous fart about the socio-political-economic side of it? All confetti and horse pucks.
    Kids (aka property as in don’t mess with.)
    Was it really cool? or uncool?
    (I’d have been royally pissed way back when to have lost my 20 bucks.)

    But apparently this guy, in some way, political, philosophical or whatever – is incorrect enough to warrant……
    (exactly what, in our brave/cowardly new punitive society?)

    Me, I’m cheap. I only give the kids a 100% markup on whatever the cost of their lemonade is.
    (And that lemonade is getting mighty scarce around these parts.)
    The high risk of entrepreneurial-ship.

    Hell, when I was 10 years old, I had run-ins with neighborhood holy rollers trying to convert me (or at least, sign me up to something.) I grabbed a red letter bible on the run, never looked back, and have survived rather agnostically ever since.
    Point being: the Holy Rollers were no “danger” to my sweet sensibility, either.
    (10 is old enough to figure out quite a few things.)

    Damn. I’m still imagining my young self wrestling with a picture in my head of cartoon bills flying off way up yonder with them cute little angel wings……………

  67. donald April 18, 2017 at 7:21 pm #

    I don’t understand the big deal. When I get a telephone sales call, I simply say “no”. When I get someone knocking on my door and wanting to convert me to their religion, I simply say “no”. When I get an email scam that asks me for my bank account details so that they can ‘give’ me $10,000, I simply say “no”.

    Kids are going to have to learn how to say no. OK Ok they know how to do this already. The problems are that they’re often taught to panic and assume the worst! People need to learn how to simply say, ‘no’. I’m amazed how many adults feel threatened at the drop of a hat. So many people get angry over nothing. I wish more people could simply say “no”.

  68. Craig April 18, 2017 at 9:32 pm #

    “It’s no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society” – Jiddu Krishnamurti

    Just because you all agree to experience taxes, currency, fuel, cancer, electric utilities, gas utilities, government, debt, drugs, school, borders, violence, war, banks, laws.. doesn’t make any of it normal or real..

  69. donald April 18, 2017 at 9:42 pm #

    As James pointed out, I’m in error. It wasn’t the mom that made the false claim. It was the son.

    Habits are hard to break. When my son was 2, he kept using his shirt to wipe the food off of his mouth. He eventually broke this habit but it was hard because it was a reflex act. Worst first thinking can also become a habit. Furthermore, it can make you see things that aren’t there.

    Whether she or her son saw the man enter a white van is not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about how people ‘see’ whatever is familiar to them. If they get years of stranger danger or years of NYPD Blues episodes, this affects their interpretation of what they see.

  70. Puzzled April 18, 2017 at 10:15 pm #

    >As soon as you tell me how I can get a refund for all the wars I don’t want us involved in.

    One of my favorite authors went to jail when he refused to pay taxes to support a war. The notion of civil disobedience has fallen out of favor with modern American libertarians, though, who prefer quite often to sit on Facebook making silly pictures with the message “taxation is theft.” I find this frustrating because, as a libertarian and Libertarian – one who was elected to public office as a Libertarian, I increasingly feel out of place among the modern American libertarian. Radicalism and extremism has become a badge of honor – rather than critically thinking through issues, many simply compete for who can out-libertarian the other.

    To me, libertarianism means a presumption in favor of the individual, freedom, and markets – a rebuttable presumption. It means having a prejudice against funding any individual item with taxes, but the ability to overcome it if sufficient reason is presented. It means demanding an explanation as to why any item is better handled by government than by markets, but accepting it when this has been sufficiently explained.

    So why stick with it, if others mean by it something different? Because, for centuries, this proud term has stood for a diversity of viewpoints, united by a common respect for spontaneous order and freedom. It has included Georgism, abolitionism, some forms of anarchism, liberty-oriented centrism, and so much more. I do not wish to give it up to those who sling an overly-simplified philosophical premise and a catch phrase. A libertarian loves liberty. I love liberty. I am a libertarian. Yet I am embarrassed by sovereign citizens, by tax resisters, and so on who also use the label.

    I am also embarrassed that modern libertarians have forgotten about civil disobedience, about taking a stand and suffering for their beliefs, and for standing for the weak and those in need of protection. Dr. King is, too often, ignored or opposed rather than revered, while those who angrily declare that we are over-policed (I agree) stand against BLM for unknown reasons, then turn around and cheer for the Bundys.

  71. pentamom April 18, 2017 at 10:23 pm #

    James, in a free market, people don’t go into or stay in the landlord business if they can’t charge enough to pay the taxes, the upkeep, the mortgage, and make at least some profit.

    So the taxes are in fact paid by the renter, because the rental property wouldn’t even exist to be rented, if the renter did not cover the taxes.

  72. pentamom April 18, 2017 at 10:25 pm #

    JTW that’s correct, but paying taxes *on* your water supply is different than paying taxes *for* your water supply, which is what I was addressing. If government went away and/or stopped taxing your well, you’d still have water supplied to your home.

  73. pentamom April 18, 2017 at 10:28 pm #

    “And, finally, owning property and renting property are not the only two options.”

    That is true. There is a statistically unimportant, and irrelevant to this conversation, number of adults who live free in the homes of other adults who are paying rent or own a home, for their entire lives.

  74. James Pollock April 18, 2017 at 11:41 pm #

    “James, in a free market, people don’t go into or stay in the landlord business if they can’t charge enough to pay the taxes, the upkeep, the mortgage, and make at least some profit.”

    They don’t always have a choice about staying in. Not all free markets are ideal ones, and being a landlord is one of them, because it has high barriers to entry and exit. Having a tenant who doesn’t cover expenses is better than having no tenant at all, since nearly all of the expenses of being a landlord continue whether the property is rented or not, and leaving the business requires finding a buyer and (probably) paying a substantial broker fee…

    “That is true. There is a statistically unimportant, and irrelevant to this conversation, number of adults who live free in the homes of other adults who are paying rent or own a home”

    Or they, say, enlist or accept a commission in the armed forces of the United States. Work a life of service to their Church. Live in section 8 housing. Take a job that includes housing. Or any of countless other choices adding up to millions of Americans at any given time.

  75. Georgie April 19, 2017 at 5:09 am #

    I cannot believe the mom who called police, and I cannot believe the CBC headline – they were out to smear the man for his anti-tax-agenda — I disagree with his agenda but there is free speech, and he did told the kids to share it with their family, it was only a website link and the kids couldn’t have seen it unless their family give unfettered access to the internet (which should not be done at this age).

    Adults shouldn’t approach kids they don’t know out of nowhere without a reason – but this wasn’t a nowhere scenario, the kids were at a lemonade stand – they were soliciting money from strangers who would talk to them. I would have given money to the soliciting kids to support their cause without taking any lemonade too – it might be too sweet or too sour for my taste, and I might not be in the mood for it, and unlike Girl Guide cookies and School Band Chocolate, I can’t save it for later or give it away.

    $20 per kid isn’t that much money for the kid, that’s just 4 to 6 meals at Pizza Pizza. It does total to $100 for all the kids, but that’s just a weekend or two of bar tab defer to ‘charity’.

    Seriously, the police DOES have better things to do with their time. Doesn’t Winnipeg have a gang problem?
    http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/11/21/the-gangs-of-winnipeg

    But hey, I know which investigation is less risky to investigate!

    – Georgia

  76. Jenna Morley April 19, 2017 at 6:38 am #

    FFS. The mom called the police about a guy she is concerned about. The police then go talk to that guy. To me, that’s police work, not paranoia.

  77. Workshop April 19, 2017 at 6:54 am #

    Jenna, paranoia is defined as “unfounded or exaggerated distrust of others.” If your kid is selling something to raise money, and someone offers him an extra $20, there is nothing to be paranoid about. To think it is suspicious is a paranoid reaction. The fact that the guy has anti-tax beliefs that make certain people’s hair stand on end doesn’t add enough to cause the interaction to rise to the level of “unfounded or exaggerated distrust.”

    I distrust lots of people. The timeshare saleswoman, totally distrust her. The drug addict who swears he’s been through rehab, totally distrust him. My son, when I ask who ate all the cookies and he says “I don’t know” while covered in crumbs, gotta distrust him. None of them get the police called on them.

    Some random guy who holds beliefs I don’t and gives an extra $20 Canadian (which is what, like $13.42 USD?) to a kid running a fundraiser? That doesn’t even rise to the level of raising an eyebrow.

  78. Jenna Morley April 19, 2017 at 7:19 am #

    How much were these kids charging for lemonade if $100 = “an extra $20”? Either that was the best lemonade EVER or you need to check your math.

    I don’t think this guy did anything criminal. But I also don’t think the mom was out of line to be a bit concerned, because that’s rather a lot of money to give kids selling lemonade on the corner, in any currency.

  79. lollipoplover April 19, 2017 at 8:34 am #

    @Jenna- My kids had many *big spenders* at their lemonade stands, often just adults who were so pleased kids still do stands that they gave them large tips. Just nice, generous strangers.

    Hey, even our police officers (when I told the kids to give these guys lemonade for free) overpay all the time, spending 20 bucks for questionable drinks.
    Would they call the police on….the police if an officer left a big tip??

    My mother always told me there are 3 things not to refuse:
    Someone gifting you money,
    a compliment,
    and a breath mint.

  80. SKL April 19, 2017 at 11:19 am #

    A white van just drove past my house.

    Just thought I’d let you guys know, in case I’m never heard from again.

  81. James Pollock April 19, 2017 at 11:41 am #

    “A white van just drove past my house.”

    Relax. The sex traffickers are all at Ikea.

  82. John B. April 19, 2017 at 11:45 am #

    “But I think the cops are correct that they have the authority to prevent THAT kind of legal misinformation from being given to kids”

    I’m not privy to Canadian law but I wouldn’t see why proliferating this kind of misinformation would be illegal just because it’s presented to kids. Heck, advertisers do this all the time. Unless he told these kids that drinking anti-freeze was good for them, I just don’t see why telling kids that paying taxes is not required, when they don’t pay taxes to begin with, would be a legal issue.

  83. James Pollock April 19, 2017 at 12:53 pm #

    “I’m not privy to Canadian law but I wouldn’t see why proliferating this kind of misinformation would be illegal just because it’s presented to kids.”

    It isn’t illegal just because it’s presented to kids. It’s illegal. Full stop. So the cops have an interest in preventing it from being given to kids. (Who don’t perhaps know how to recognize that it’s illegal.)
    Don’t take one thing and try to turn it into another thing.

    “I just don’t see why telling kids that paying taxes is not required, when they don’t pay taxes to begin with”
    Where are you getting the idea that Canadian kids are exempt from taxation?

  84. Papilio April 20, 2017 at 6:47 am #

    @Jenna: “How much were these kids charging for lemonade if $100 = “an extra $20”? Either that was the best lemonade EVER or you need to check your math.”

    Did you even read…? It doesn’t say ‘extra’, it just says he gave them 20 bucks each, regardless of the actual price of the lemonade. In fact, it doesn’t even say if the man actually bought lemonade at all.

  85. John B. April 20, 2017 at 12:56 pm #

    “Where are you getting the idea that Canadian kids are exempt from taxation?”

    I’m not referring to their parents who might pay taxes based on the number of dependents they have but it’s ludicrous to assume that the kids themselves pay taxes.

  86. James Pollock April 20, 2017 at 12:59 pm #

    “it’s ludicrous to assume that the kids themselves pay taxes.”

    Dude, kids pay taxes just like everyone else. “Ludicrous” as that is, it’s just true.

  87. James April 20, 2017 at 1:36 pm #

    “I don’t understand the big deal.”

    It’s simple, Donald: Libertarians make people uncomfortable, and any discomfort associated with children results in immediate calls for the person’s arrest. This has nothing to do with protecting kids–it’s a bias against a specific political belief and attempting to shut it down by using kids as a way to avoid people realizing that’s what’s happening.

    Note how people have tried and convicted this person as a tax dodger and encouraging children to not pay taxes. Then look at the actual information available, which supports precisely none of those accusations. All he did was donate some money, state his beliefs, and give them a card. Note how they’re ignoring examples of equivalent acts that are treated as every-day occurrences, and ignoring common actions that are far worse than handing a kid a business card.

    This has nothing to do with kids. It has nothing to do with protecting kids. It’s an attempt to censor information some people disagree with.

    (Because someone will refuse to read it in earlier posts, I will re-state that I disagree with the notion that all taxation is wrong, morally or legally, and with the notion of a government funded by voluntary donations. I’m arguing against shouting down ideas people dislike, NOT in favor of this man’s position.)

  88. James Pollock April 20, 2017 at 2:37 pm #

    “Note how people have tried and convicted this person as a tax dodger and encouraging children to not pay taxes. Then look at the actual information available, which supports precisely none of those accusations. All he did was donate some money, state his beliefs, and give them a card”

    What you say may be true. But it may not be.
    It all depends on what flavor of “anti-tax advocate” the guy is.
    If he’s the “our legislators should vote to reduce our taxes, and if they don’t we should vote for different legislators” type of “anti-tax advocate”, then attempting to silence him is clearly contrary to democratic principles. However, “anti-tax advocate” is a label that covers many other things. One other example is the “send me money and I’ll tell you how you can make yourself exempt from taxation” scammer. Another group is the folks who believe that they can choose to “opt out” of being subject to any statutory law at all, not just taxes. Those last two are, in fact, illegal to advocate.

    “This has nothing to do with kids. It has nothing to do with protecting kids. It’s an attempt to censor information some people disagree with.”
    See above.

    I think you’re making a fundamental assumption about the nature of the gentleman’s activism. You’ve decided it’s just political activism and nothing more, and refuse to consider any other possibilities. Well, there are other possibilities.

  89. lemonade bar April 21, 2017 at 2:57 am #

    The real criminal (mind) is the lemonade seller, aka the kid.. He sells lemonade with too much water in it! hahaha

  90. James April 21, 2017 at 11:12 am #

    “What you say may be true. But it may not be.
    It all depends on what flavor of “anti-tax advocate” the guy is.”

    JP, if you’d bother to read the post as a whole, rather than pulling out bits and pieces and arguing against them in isolation, you would realize that that was my whole bloody point. Everyone ASSUMES this man is 1) not paying taxes, and 2) encouraging others to not pay taxes. They are basing this on nothing. This is Bad Logic. Until we know exactly what kind of anti-tax advocate he is, the sum total of the information we have is that he doesn’t like taxes, gave the kids $100, and has a website. That’s it. All this fear-mongering and irrational attacks against this man and his position are based on nothing more than prejudice against the Libertarian position on taxation–because there’s not enough information available for it to come from any other source.

    “I think you’re making a fundamental assumption about the nature of the gentleman’s activism.”

    No. You are dead wrong, and demonstrating a deplorable lack of critical thinking. I am arguing against a specific type of argument by demonstrating that the information available can lead to a much more benign alternative interpretation, and therefore the arguments being presented are irrational (incomplete at best; fallacious at worst). I am not saying anything about this man or the nature of his activism–my sole concern is with the nature of the arguments presented in this thread against this man. My whole point is WE DON’T KNOW what the nature of his activism is, and therefore should hold off on the tarring and feathering.

  91. James Pollock April 21, 2017 at 11:50 am #

    “JP, if you’d bother to read the post as a whole, rather than pulling out bits and pieces and arguing against them in isolation”

    Here is a free hint: If you’re going to complain that someone else is commenting without reading the whole post, make sure that you, yourself, have read the entire post.

    “you would realize that that was my whole bloody point. Everyone ASSUMES this man is 1) not paying taxes, and 2) encouraging others to not pay taxes. They are basing this on nothing.”

    Or would be, unless they read the linked articles that this post refers to. One of those articles, for example, includes the quotes 1) “Bessette told CBC he does not pay taxes” and 2) “‘It’s one thing for him to approach an adult and kind of communicate those beliefs, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for him to talk to minors about this,’ he said”

    So what was your bloody point, again?

  92. James April 21, 2017 at 12:00 pm #

    “Or would be, unless they read the linked articles that this post refers to. One of those articles, for example, includes the quotes 1) “Bessette told CBC he does not pay taxes”…”

    Uh huh. They also claimed that he was in a white van, and several other demonstrably untrue things. At this point, the evidence is tainted and we need to be VERY careful what we accept. Both sides agree that the man gave the kids $100, both sides agree that he is an anti-tax advocate, and a few other facts. Those are the ONLY data that I consider valid absent corroborating evidence. Because it’s very likely someone is mistaken or lying about the rest, as we know for certain someone is mistaken or lying about several parts of this episode. I am going by standard scientific protocols here; I know this isn’t a scientific experiment, but these protocols are logically sound.

    “2) “‘It’s one thing for him to approach an adult and kind of communicate those beliefs, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for him to talk to minors about this,’…”

    This is not data. This is moralizing–exactly the sort of anti-Libertarian bias I was talking about. Again, this would never have made the newspapers if a church had done the same thing, handing out a religious pamphlet rather than a business card (we know this because of the number of times churches do exactly this without local or national scandal); since the difference is the political philosophy espoused by this man, that’s obviously the cause of the different reaction.

    If you’re going to question me on data, make sure you have your ducks in a row.

    “So what was your bloody point, again?”

    I’ve made it perfectly clear. Re-read the last paragraph of my previous post. If you’re still confused, I recommend consulting a dictionary. I literally spelled it out.

    But given your propensity to not read for comprehension, your inability to consistently apply rational standards to data evaluation, and now your flagrant refusal to read what I post, I’m going back to ignoring you.

  93. James Pollock April 21, 2017 at 12:25 pm #

    “Uh huh. They also claimed that he was in a white van”

    Still didn’t read the linked articles, huh?

    “Bessette said he never got into a van”

    “and several other demonstrably untrue things.”
    Actually, we only have Bessette’s word that he didn’t get into a white van. I mean, I’m pretty sure he’s telling the truth about it, but… how are you going to demonstrate this fact?

    “At this point, the evidence is tainted and we need to be VERY careful what we accept”
    So… we should take Bessette’s word as “domonstrably true” when he says he didn’t get into a van, but we can’t trust him when he says he doesn’t pay taxes and was trying to spread his philosophy to these kids?

    (for example: “Bessette is a member of the Peace Maker Society — a group that doesn’t believe in paying taxes — and said he simply wanted to spread that message while supporting the young entrepreneurs.”)

    Try applying a little common sense… the parent didn’t interact with the guy… how would she know he was an anti-tax advocate unless he’d advocated his anti-tax position?

    “Those are the ONLY data that I consider valid absent corroborating evidence.”
    Your failure to consider it valid, however, doesn’t make it invalid.

    ” I am going by standard scientific protocols here”
    What kind of science has protocols where you don’t obtain all the available information before reaching a conclusion, and willfully ignore data that is contrary to your preferred conclusion? Fundamentalist biology? Republican Climate Science?

    “If you’re going to question me on data, make sure you have your ducks in a row.”
    Here is a free hint, repeated for your convenience:: If you’re going to complain that someone else is commenting without reading the whole post, make sure that you, yourself, have read the entire post.

    “I’ve made it perfectly clear. Re-read the last paragraph of my previous post. If you’re still confused, I recommend consulting a dictionary. I literally spelled it out.”
    Ah, yes. “Everyone ASSUMES this man is 1) not paying taxes, and 2) encouraging others to not pay taxes.”
    This is a demonstrably flawed premise, yet you choose to cling to it after it’s been shown to be false. From this, the conclusion is that your point is that you choose to remain deluded. Carry on.

  94. John B. April 21, 2017 at 2:12 pm #

    “Dude, kids pay taxes just like everyone else. “Ludicrous” as that is, it’s just true.”

    I don’t know of a single kid, at least under 16, who ever paid taxes. Certainly not for running a lemonade stand.

  95. James Pollock April 22, 2017 at 5:42 pm #

    “I don’t know of a single kid, at least under 16, who ever paid taxes.”

    Then you don’t know any Canadians.
    https://www.advalorem.ca/en/canada-vat-rates/

  96. Carolyn April 23, 2017 at 9:36 am #

    The guy’s intentions may have been good but there is appropriate and inappropriate behavior. They are minors. In my opinion, he should’ve given the kids the money and commended them for their efforts, but then given the card to the parent or tell the kids to give the card to their parent. You don’t encourage a minor to call a stranger for any reason, free range parenting or not. It would be the parent’s job to communicate those beliefs to their under-aged child, not his.
    I believe his actions were a bit ignorant and are what caused the parents to be concerned and police to get involved.
    If I were the parent, I probably would’ve called the guy myself in order to verify his intention and put him in his place.
    Adults do need to be a little smarter.

  97. Jennifer C April 23, 2017 at 11:45 am #

    Unless he was planning on kidnapping the kids and turning them into his own little Anti-tax Army, I think we can safely put this guy into the ‘harmless kook’ category.