That does seem rather churlish, on the face of it.
But if one were to be charitable, and avoid falling into the trap of being equally churlish, one could argue that his exasperation was at the fact that the girls are actually harming themselves and their parents by giving away things for free which clearly cost them time and money. The whole point of the article is that he argues that taxpayers harm themselves and each other by tolerating an over-generous use of their finite resources.
(, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 13:15, Reply)
And only using three little girls selling home-made lemonade as an example.
You're right, clearly he's not miserable.
(, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 13:20, Reply)
It's only a few lemons. No harm done
The article even shows how they had adult supervision, so it's not like they were giving stuff away without consent.
He's trying to compare the situation with an economic system, when it's just plain charity. Probably the parents are teaching the children the virtue of sharing and charity.
There's only one way to look at the article, and that's one angry man trying to impose his ideals on others, and make a tenuous news story out of it.
(, Wed 7 Jul 2010, 13:22, Reply)