[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Question for Libertarians? (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 1/4/2011 9:48:31 PM EDT
|
I am a libertarian. With that said, I am wondering how one would handle this situation. Say you are taking your kids to disneyland. ON public land outside of Disneyland.. Say on the side of the road, two people are fornicating and have brought a large screen to televise it on the side of the road. They are not doing it for profit, rather simply to troll the public. How do we handle such a situation, where they are not actually hurting anyone, if you say they are violating some moral code or something then that opens up a slippery slope. A libertarian world is rife for trolling. I can accept that, but I cant imagine a large portion of the citizenry would be as willing to accept such trolling. |
|
Public lewdness laws are not the domain of the Federal Government, but of the local governments. The community at hand would set the lewd conduct standards and codify them into laws.
THus, one beach town could have topless beaches and the next one down the road wouldn't. Simple. 
|
|
Frankly I wouldn't give a damn.
"Son, those are two grownups doing something stupid. Just ignore them. Do you want to go to Thunder Mountain or Star Tours first?" It's only a huge fucking deal if you MAKE it into one. If you treat it like a boring who-cares thing, the kids will forget in five minutes. |
|
Quoted: Public lewdness laws are not the domain of the Federal Government, but of the local governments. The community at hand would set the lewd conduct standards and codify them into laws. THus, one beach town could have topless beaches and the next one down the road wouldn't. Simple. Thats not a very libertarian solution. Tyranny of the majority; what happens if that community wanted to pass a law that said women can not show any portion of their body and must wear a Habib? |
|
In this libertarian utopia, there are social checks that would bind such behavior, such as an employer who doesn't want to be associated with such deviants firing them "without cause" (in our world), which would be their right in the world you describe. No laws broken, but social taboo enough to get them denied service, denied employment, denied association, with no recourse but to act in an acceptable manner.
Just my guess. Without social safety nets, there is motive to act acceptably. No welfare if you're jobless. No civil suits for denial of service for discrimination. Act according to society's norms, or be an outcast, as opposed to the outcasts forcing society to bend to their will like we have today. |
|
Quoted: Frankly I wouldn't give a damn. "Son, those are two grownups doing something stupid. Just ignore them. Do you want to go to Thunder Mountain or Star Tours first?" It's only a huge fucking deal if you MAKE it into one. If you treat it like a boring who-cares thing, the kids will forget in five minutes. I like this one.. This is how I handle such lesser degree situations currently. |
|
Quoted:
Public lewdness laws are not the domain of the Federal Government, but of the local governments. The community at hand would set the lewd conduct standards and codify them into laws. THus, one beach town could have topless beaches and the next one down the road wouldn't. Simple. Yep. My town's beaches require clothing,move one step over to the left,you can also nude up if you want. Most people don't want to see what it offered up at most MA nude beaches.The hot eastern European girls are outnumbered by fat dudes 87:1 
BTW,it's always something absolutely absurd that someone has to pull out to show how bad libertarians are.It's as if the reason people don't do these sorts of things is somehow because it's illegal rather than there are sufficient moral and social pressures to keep some behaviors in place. It is 100% legal to wear nothing but a thong and ball gag in public as it stands.One could walk around all day like this,being led around on ones leash by a latex clad gimp and there's nothing anyone could do about it.Therefore,why don't more people do it? Perhaps it's the same reason that lawful carry of firearms does not = "blood in the streets"? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Public lewdness laws are not the domain of the Federal Government, but of the local governments. The community at hand would set the lewd conduct standards and codify them into laws. THus, one beach town could have topless beaches and the next one down the road wouldn't. Simple. Thats not a very libertarian solution. Tyranny of the majority; what happens if that community wanted to pass a law that said women can not show any portion of their body and must wear a Habib? Who would live in that town? Free market FTW. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Public lewdness laws are not the domain of the Federal Government, but of the local governments. The community at hand would set the lewd conduct standards and codify them into laws. THus, one beach town could have topless beaches and the next one down the road wouldn't. Simple. Yep. My town's beaches require clothing,move one step over to the left,you can also nude up if you want. Most people don't want to see what it offered up at most MA nude beaches.The hot eastern European girls are outnumbered by fat dudes 87:1 BTW,it's always something absolutely absurd that someone has to pull out to show how bad libertarians are.It's as if the reason people don't do these sorts of things is somehow because it's illegal rather than there are sufficient moral and social pressures to keep some behaviors in place. It is 100% legal to wear nothing but a thong and ball gag in public as it stands.One could walk around all day like this,being led around on ones leash by a latex clad gimp and there's nothing anyone could do about it.Therefore,why don't more people do it? Perhaps it's the same reason that lawful carry of firearms does not = "blood in the streets"? I was merely trying to think of a scenerio where there is not a very easy answer. fornication at night in an alley? sure fornication in your own yard? sure fornication at work? well clearly the business has a choice how to handle that fornication in public? well maybe fornication in public in front of disney land? I would accept it, just curious how other liberterians think it should be handled |
|
Quoted: I am a libertarian. With that said, I am wondering how one would handle this situation. Say you are taking your kids to disneyland. ON public land outside of Disneyland.. Say on the side of the road, two people are fornicating and have brought a large screen to televise it on the side of the road. They are not doing it for profit, rather simply to troll the public. How do we handle such a situation, where they are not actually hurting anyone, if you say they are violating some moral code or something then that opens up a slippery slope. A libertarian world is rife for trolling. I can accept that, but I cant imagine a large portion of the citizenry would be as willing to accept such trolling. No public land in a Libertarian's nirvana. Everything is privately owned. |
|
Quoted: A libertarian world is rife for trolling. I can accept that, but I cant imagine a large portion of the citizenry would be as willing to accept such trolling. I, personally, would ask nothing of my gov to stop such behavior. I don't trust them to not fuck up anything. I would have to have a far more compelling reason to request action from my reps then some dumbasses going at it like rabbits. However, you are 100% spot on stating that most people would not accept such things. Many people live to bend other people's behavior through the use of laws, regulations, and the such. Think the busy-body old hag in a HOA that calls on everyone, for anything. |
|
Quoted:
Public lewdness laws are not the domain of the Federal Government, but of the local governments. The community at hand would set the lewd conduct standards and codify them into laws. THus, one beach town could have topless beaches and the next one down the road wouldn't. Simple. +1 |
|
Quoted: Public lewdness laws are not the domain of the Federal Government, but of the local governments. The community at hand would set the lewd conduct standards and codify them into laws. THus, one beach town could have topless beaches and the next one down the road wouldn't. Simple. No. 'Full' Libertarianisim demands that 'if it's not hurting anyone' it MUST be legal. We're not talking about neo-confederate deconstructionisim... We're talking 'Sex on a streetcorner between consenting adults at 12 noon must be legal, because no one is being hurt by the act'... At all levels of government. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Public lewdness laws are not the domain of the Federal Government, but of the local governments. The community at hand would set the lewd conduct standards and codify them into laws. THus, one beach town could have topless beaches and the next one down the road wouldn't. Simple. No. 'Full' Libertarianisim demands that 'if it's not hurting anyone' it MUST be legal. We're not talking about neo-confederate deconstructionisim... We're talking 'Sex on a streetcorner between consenting adults at 12 noon must be legal, because no one is being hurt by the act'... At all levels of government. dave is correct |
|
Personally,I'd handle it the same way I would now...ignore it.
Anyone doing such a thing would only be doing it for the attention and they could quite literally screw themselves to death before I'd give them the satisfaction of providing any. OTOH ,I'd no more actively protect their "right" to behave in such a manner than while I'd never physically stop someone from burning a US flag wouldn't do anything for 'em if they set themselves ablaze in the process. |
|
In my flavor of libertarianism that would be inflicting harm on your kids so it wouldn't be a protected thing to do.
To me there is a public sphere and a private sphere. In your private sphere do whatever the fuck you want. If your actions affect others you're now in the public sphere and you have to behave yourself. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Public lewdness laws are not the domain of the Federal Government, but of the local governments. The community at hand would set the lewd conduct standards and codify them into laws. THus, one beach town could have topless beaches and the next one down the road wouldn't. Simple. Thats not a very libertarian solution. Tyranny of the majority; what happens if that community wanted to pass a law that said women can not show any portion of their body and must wear a Habib? A libertarian society probably can't survive on apathy. If the strong majority of the citizens don't treasure their freedom, they will probably lose it/give it away. I do believe there is some level of community standard that is to be expected. "breaks my leg" isn't limited to just the physical. I think libel could still be a crime to libertarians. I think loud music ordnances would still be acceptable even if the music isn't physically or financially harmful to you. I think exposing yourself inappropriately to others could be considered harmful to others as well even if not directly physically. Nude beach? Sure, all consenting adults, no problem. Strip club? Again, consenting adults. Exposing yourself to minors? Harmful to others, hence where your liberty ends. Libertarianism isn't total freedom from laws, you will still be expect to respect the freedoms of others. Perhaps it will always eventually turn into a "no true scotsman" situation but I like to think it is possible to assemble a group of people who would respect the rights of others and care enough to keep it that way. |
|
Quoted: In my flavor of libertarianism that would be inflicting harm on your kids so it wouldn't be a protected thing to do. To me there is a public sphere and a private sphere. In your private sphere do whatever the fuck you want. If your actions affect others you're now in the public sphere and you have to behave yourself. Who would decide what represents "inflicting harm on your kids?" |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
In my flavor of libertarianism that would be inflicting harm on your kids so it wouldn't be a protected thing to do. To me there is a public sphere and a private sphere. In your private sphere do whatever the fuck you want. If your actions affect others you're now in the public sphere and you have to behave yourself. Who would decide what represents "inflicting harm on your kids?" The very limited, but still existent government of elected officials. This is libertarianism not anarchy. |
|
Quoted:
In my flavor of libertarianism that would be inflicting harm on your kids so it wouldn't be a protected thing to do. To me there is a public sphere and a private sphere. In your private sphere do whatever the fuck you want. If your actions affect others you're now in the public sphere and you have to behave yourself. Your "flavor of libertarianism" sounds suspiciously like nanny-state BS. If it's for the children, it can't be wrong. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
In my flavor of libertarianism that would be inflicting harm on your kids so it wouldn't be a protected thing to do. To me there is a public sphere and a private sphere. In your private sphere do whatever the fuck you want. If your actions affect others you're now in the public sphere and you have to behave yourself. Your "flavor of libertarianism" sounds suspiciously like nanny-state BS. If it's for the children, it can't be wrong. I'm not even saying that fucking on the side of the road is wrong, or that it's because the kids are present, but doing things in public space requires different scrutiny to me than what you do in private. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In my flavor of libertarianism that would be inflicting harm on your kids so it wouldn't be a protected thing to do. To me there is a public sphere and a private sphere. In your private sphere do whatever the fuck you want. If your actions affect others you're now in the public sphere and you have to behave yourself. Your "flavor of libertarianism" sounds suspiciously like nanny-state BS. If it's for the children, it can't be wrong. I'm not even saying that fucking on the side of the road is wrong, or that it's because the kids are present, but doing things in public space requires different scrutiny to me than what you do in private. Do you think swearing in public should be illegal? Breastfeeding? Women walking around topless? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In my flavor of libertarianism that would be inflicting harm on your kids so it wouldn't be a protected thing to do. To me there is a public sphere and a private sphere. In your private sphere do whatever the fuck you want. If your actions affect others you're now in the public sphere and you have to behave yourself. Your "flavor of libertarianism" sounds suspiciously like nanny-state BS. If it's for the children, it can't be wrong. I'm not even saying that fucking on the side of the road is wrong, or that it's because the kids are present, but doing things in public space requires different scrutiny to me than what you do in private. Do you think swearing in public should be illegal? Breastfeeding? Women walking around topless? Personally no, I don't have a problem with any of those things, but if you're doing it in public your encroaching on others space as well so there will be some regulations. If you want to have an 800 person homo gangbang between consenting adults you're more than welcome to, but you can't do it in the middle of the street, you'll be blocking traffic and impeding others. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In my flavor of libertarianism that would be inflicting harm on your kids so it wouldn't be a protected thing to do. To me there is a public sphere and a private sphere. In your private sphere do whatever the fuck you want. If your actions affect others you're now in the public sphere and you have to behave yourself. Your "flavor of libertarianism" sounds suspiciously like nanny-state BS. If it's for the children, it can't be wrong. I'm not even saying that fucking on the side of the road is wrong, or that it's because the kids are present, but doing things in public space requires different scrutiny to me than what you do in private. Do you think swearing in public should be illegal? Breastfeeding? Women walking around topless? Personally no, I don't have a problem with any of those things, but if you're doing it in public your encroaching on others space as well so there will be some regulations. If you want to have an 800 person homo gangbang between consenting adults you're more than welcome to, but you can't do it in the middle of the street, you'll be blocking traffic and impeding others. And if the homo gangbang is on the side of the road? Are they encroaching on others space? Lets say they are taking up the same amount of public space a some people playing soccer? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In my flavor of libertarianism that would be inflicting harm on your kids so it wouldn't be a protected thing to do. To me there is a public sphere and a private sphere. In your private sphere do whatever the fuck you want. If your actions affect others you're now in the public sphere and you have to behave yourself. Your "flavor of libertarianism" sounds suspiciously like nanny-state BS. If it's for the children, it can't be wrong. I'm not even saying that fucking on the side of the road is wrong, or that it's because the kids are present, but doing things in public space requires different scrutiny to me than what you do in private. Do you think swearing in public should be illegal? Breastfeeding? Women walking around topless? Personally no, I don't have a problem with any of those things, but if you're doing it in public your encroaching on others space as well so there will be some regulations. If you want to have an 800 person homo gangbang between consenting adults you're more than welcome to, but you can't do it in the middle of the street, you'll be blocking traffic and impeding others. And if the homo gangbang is on the side of the road? Are they encroaching on others space? Lets say they are taking up the same amount of public space a some people playing soccer? If they rented out their own soccer field and the owners of said soccer field are cool with it, sure. But they can't block the sidewalk. |
|
Quoted:
I am a libertarian. With that said, I am wondering how one would handle this situation. Say you are taking your kids to disneyland. ON public land outside of Disneyland.. Say on the side of the road, two people are fornicating and have brought a large screen to televise it on the side of the road. They are not doing it for profit, rather simply to troll the public. How do we handle such a situation, where they are not actually hurting anyone, if you say they are violating some moral code or something then that opens up a slippery slope. A libertarian world is rife for trolling. I can accept that, but I cant imagine a large portion of the citizenry would be as willing to accept such trolling. A Libertarian answers: Public land? It's subject to the rules set by the owner, aka the collective. That currently (and probably will always) includes a rule that you're not to fuck in plain view on public property cause most of us don't want to see it. End realist block, Begin Libertarian "how things should be" block. There shouldn't be much public land though. Most of it should be private. Then the owners could set the rules just the same, and if it included fucking while people walked past on the sidewalk so be it. Who am I to tell em to cover up? If I don't want to see it I can look elsewhere. |
|
Quoted:
In this libertarian utopia, there are social checks that would bind such behavior, such as an employer who doesn't want to be associated with such deviants firing them "without cause" (in our world), which would be their right in the world you describe. No laws broken, but social taboo enough to get them denied service, denied employment, denied association, with no recourse but to act in an acceptable manner. Just my guess. Without social safety nets, there is motive to act acceptably. No welfare if you're jobless. No civil suits for denial of service for discrimination. Act according to society's norms, or be an outcast, as opposed to the outcasts forcing society to bend to their will like we have today. This is pretty close. Libertarianism works both ways. Yes, they can broadcast their coupling on the side of the road––-but they're going to need gas for that generator sometime, and if it's my gas station, they ain't gettin' any from me. You're free to do what you want––me too! I'm pretty sure the rest of the good folks in my community would feel the same way. Bill, who owns the grocery, may not want to sell food to you. Connie down at the Power Plant may just decide that your behavior is not up to the standard of Connie's Power Plant customers––so the couple in question may find that they are now free to find an alternate power source. Roy, the father of two little girls and owner of the local hardware/generator supply store, just doesn't have the parts that the lover's need to maintain their generator. Theresa––a great landlady normally, and proud mother of three little boys and two girls, is unable to approve of the lover's renter's request at this time due to "I just don't like you" reasons. Shit works both ways. Libs think that humans can self-regulate fairly well. |
|
Quoted:
In my flavor of libertarianism that would be inflicting harm on your kids so it wouldn't be a protected thing to do. To me there is a public sphere and a private sphere. In your private sphere do whatever the fuck you want. If your actions affect others you're now in the public sphere and you have to behave yourself. "For the Children!" |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In my flavor of libertarianism that would be inflicting harm on your kids so it wouldn't be a protected thing to do. To me there is a public sphere and a private sphere. In your private sphere do whatever the fuck you want. If your actions affect others you're now in the public sphere and you have to behave yourself. Who would decide what represents "inflicting harm on your kids?" The very limited, but still existent government of elected officials. This is libertarianism not anarchy. Fail. Libertarianism is specific in that it does not initiate aggression (but allowed to THOROUGHLY respond to it), while allowing you to do what you will, as long as you do not harm others, or their property. Anarchy has no such limitations. And now you know! 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In my flavor of libertarianism that would be inflicting harm on your kids so it wouldn't be a protected thing to do. To me there is a public sphere and a private sphere. In your private sphere do whatever the fuck you want. If your actions affect others you're now in the public sphere and you have to behave yourself. Your "flavor of libertarianism" sounds suspiciously like nanny-state BS. If it's for the children, it can't be wrong. I'm not even saying that fucking on the side of the road is wrong, or that it's because the kids are present, but doing things in public space requires different scrutiny to me than what you do in private. That goes against Libertarian principles. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In my flavor of libertarianism that would be inflicting harm on your kids so it wouldn't be a protected thing to do. To me there is a public sphere and a private sphere. In your private sphere do whatever the fuck you want. If your actions affect others you're now in the public sphere and you have to behave yourself. Your "flavor of libertarianism" sounds suspiciously like nanny-state BS. If it's for the children, it can't be wrong. I'm not even saying that fucking on the side of the road is wrong, or that it's because the kids are present, but doing things in public space requires different scrutiny to me than what you do in private. That goes against Libertarian principles. No it doesn't it's the harm principle that libertarianism is based on. Fail. Libertarianism is specific in that it does not initiate aggression (but allowed to THOROUGHLY respond to it), while allowing you to do what you will, as long as you do not harm others, or their property.
Anarchy has no such limitations. And now you know! Harm extends beyond physical pain. By doing something in public you are forcing other people to be a part of it and invading on their liberty. Go reread your JSM and stop using a capital "L" |
|
Quoted:
Public lewdness laws are not the domain of the Federal Government, but of the local governments. The community at hand would set the lewd conduct standards and codify them into laws. THus, one beach town could have topless beaches and the next one down the road wouldn't. Simple. This is the answer I would go with. Even in a pretty much pure Libertarian society, communities will still have standards and lewdness to varying degrees might be something that is not protected by the 1st Amendment. You wanna fuck? Fine. You wanna do it on the side of the road? Well... ok I guess. But putting it up on a huge TV so that everyone that drives by WILL see it? That's kinda forcing it on other people. While you have the right to fuck consensually, I also have a right not to be forced to WATCH you fuck in a public place. |
|
I consider myself Libertarian with a Conservative streak. I also believe in being 'my brother's keeper' and involving law enforcement is a last resort. Common sense prevails.....they are out of bounds of acceptable decency. They are fucking with your pursuit of happiness with purpose.
I love it when people think they can pull stunts and mouth off and claim it is their right to do so......well, so is getting your ass kicked. Sometime things in life boil down to imposing will and implementing violence because some assholes function at the lowest common denominator and will only respond to force......the Anarchist mind. |
|
Why let other people decide your political/social beliefs? Do what YOU think is right. Whether that be calling the police, handling it yourself, or doing nothing. I don't identify with any political party. I base my beliefs on what I think of the specific topic, not what my label tells me to think. I'll probably be put on some ignore lists for this; but the biggest reason I never got on board with the Libertarian party, is because they seem so concerned about how "Libertarian" others think they are. It's like they are always "One-Upping" each other, with how much more "Libertarian" they are than the next guy.
|
|
Quoted: Frankly I wouldn't give a damn. "Son, those are two grownups doing something stupid. Just ignore them. Do you want to go to Thunder Mountain or Star Tours first?" It's only a huge fucking deal if you MAKE it into one. If you treat it like a boring who-cares thing, the kids will forget in five minutes. This. If you ignore the attention whores, they eventually go away. |
|
Quoted: In this libertarian utopia, there are social checks that would bind such behavior, such as an employer who doesn't want to be associated with such deviants firing them "without cause" (in our world), which would be their right in the world you describe. No laws broken, but social taboo enough to get them denied service, denied employment, denied association, with no recourse but to act in an acceptable manner. Just my guess. Without social safety nets, there is motive to act acceptably. No welfare if you're jobless. No civil suits for denial of service for discrimination. Act according to society's norms, or be an outcast, as opposed to the outcasts forcing society to bend to their will like we have today. Good answer. To the OP, read Freehold by Michael Z Williamson. It's scifi but very political, too. It was the book that actually got me hooked on military/political scifi. |
|
The libertarian answer to that one is simple, it's not just about "it harms no one or is consensual" but rather IS IT CONSENSUAL TO ALL PARTIES?
In this case it is clearly NOT consensual for all people involved. And being forced to watch it or being unable to avoid watching it even for a few seconds means you are forcing YOUR view of sexual conduct on others. That goes against the premise of libertarianism to begin with. Of course i also believe in "general community standards", for example what about a huge sign for victorias secret with a huge pic of a model in underwear?? is that also acceptable? Well i have this thing i call "The beach rule", meaning in a public place with people of ALL ages attending, is such conduct tolerated? for example wearing a thong at Longs islands jones beach, the answer is yes, if that is allowed then does it matter if its also seen on a highway? Are you allowed to fornicate in public view of the beach? ( yes please!) If you cannot then it is not acceptable there or anywhere in public with NON consenting persons present.
|
|
Full libertarianism is almost anarchy. That may be true.
But is there anything wrong with advocating for the government to take a more libertarian direction without going full libtard? Better than the welfare nanny money wasting debt accruing garbage state we have now... |