<p>Let's hope Virg doesn't get this kind of idea: <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/philly-requiring-bloggers-to-pay-300-for-a-business-license-101264664.html">Philly requiring bloggers to pay $300 for a business license</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Between her blog and infrequent contributions to ehow.com, over the last few years she says she&rsquo;s made about $50. To [Marilyn] Bess, her website is a hobby. To the city of Philadelphia, it&rsquo;s a potential moneymaker, and the city wants its cut.<br />
<br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>In May, the city sent Bess a letter demanding that she pay $300, the price of a business privilege license.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How dare she! How dare that woman try to make a few dollars without the government able to seize their fair share to give to people that did nothing for it. She's got some nerve, making that $50.</p>
<p>It's just like that ungrateful 7-year old that tried to run a <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/08/portland_lemonade_stand_runs_i.html">lemonade stand in Oregon</a>:. Luckily, a government official was there to save humanity:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>After 20 minutes, a &quot;lady with a clipboard&quot; came over and asked for their license. When Fife explained they didn't have one, the woman told them they would need to leave or possibly face a $500 fine.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Didn't she know that she needed a permit to sell lemonade? Selling lemonade without a government permit? Just a fine? Throw her in jail!</p>
<p>When are people going to learn that our overbearing government and stupid regulations are for our own good? We can't think for ourselves. Thank goodness that bureaucrat in Oregon came to shut that girl down - she could have used a bad lemon in her lemonade, and then where would those poor, unsuspecting patrons have been?</p>
<p>Speaking of overbearing regulation, here is <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(f5yemhmhky0ibcbekbedhv45))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&amp;objectname=2010-HB-6234">2010 House Bill 6234 </a>(Clarify deer feeding ban detail )</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Introduced by Rep. Mark Meadows (D) on June 1, 2010, to clarify that the law restricting or banning wild deer or elk feeding does not ban the &ldquo;incidental&rdquo; feeding of these animals when feeding wild birds or other wildlife. Reportedly the bill was introduced after a Northern Michigan man who broadcasts the action at his birdfeeder on his website was served with an arrest warrant by the Department of Natural Resources because deer sometimes are seen eating the fallen seeds.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Sweet, now people that have birdfeeders will not be subject to fines just in case deer eat from them. Just what the Founders intended. Why they didn't include restrictions on feeding deer in the Constitution, I have no idea.</p>