The non-agression-principle is a REALLY useful "yard-stick" in these conditions. (maybe "ruler" is a better word 
John Bechtol,
I am a Southerner, a person who speaks with "a red-neck drawl," and a Libertarian. Your bigotry and lack of tolerance for speech diversity and diversity of speech communities is not appreciated, nor funny. Though it is fashionable among the politically-correct to mock Southern speech, I'd expect and appreciate a higher standard from an LPSF member.
Don Fields
I suppose you don't like Jeff Foxworthy either. And I suppose you complain to the producers, writers, directors and actors of every portrayal of "rednecks" in every movie, play, TV show, and advertisement. You must really have it in for Bruce Dern.
And thanks for noticing the content of the post, beyond the theatrics.
And if yer looking for "politically correct" from me, you came to wrong place.
That being said, I'm sorry if hurt your feelings. But it has nothing to do with intolerance, bigotry, or Southern speech. You don't know me or with what authority I can speak of rednecks. There is plenty of hay to buck right here. And don't think I'm a stranger to the hooks.
I suspect the intolerance is on your side of the street.
John
Hi Starchild,
In the process of doing my end of year business cleanup, I go through all my client files and spend a good part of my day shredding paper (yes, a lot of clients still like paper records). While doing that today, in an effort to keep focused, I watched METV, where they show the old TV shows that are so relaxing in their straight forward good/bad, no-situational-ethics-allowed approach to life. One of the episodes in "The Rifleman" would serve well in my responding to your question. An Old West gambler and his two ladies land in town, set on establishing their business at the local boarding house; which from your point of view, a fervor for liberty would dictate the town be OK with that. Well, the town was not OK with that. When the trio indicated their unwillingness to abide by town standards, the locals made sure the newcomers were on the next stagecoach out. The show made pretty clear whose "rights" were to prevail -- not those of the few.
Although our Founding Parents thought to place governmental impediments against tyranny of both the majority and the few (Sup Wiener was thinking of the later in his proposal), I much prefer the Old West ways as described above, sans government intervention.
And, BTW, again, just to splash some more oil into this fire -- acceptance of changing mores, a result of social evolution or tyranny of the few?
Marcy
Hello Don,
As one of this list's moderators, I apologize for us all getting a bit out of control here over this subject! We sure have some wide-spread ideas of what "liberty" entails.
Have a wonderful holiday tomorrow!
Marcy
Marcy: I love METV, and I love the Rifleman. But this whole lengthy nudist topic reminds of another METV show, MASH. In it they often speak of "triage". Of the all the attacks on freedom from every front, is this the one that gets the big attention?? Is there we should draw the line?
Happy Thanksgiving, LPSF!
Hi David,
Ah, another METV fan!! Ok, you made me laugh out loud. On this list, we focus on the darnedest things!
Everybody have a great Thanksgiving.
Marcy
Marcy,
By the same device the trio were deprived of their business, witches were burned at the stake.
Your example is not about rights. It's about indifference to rights. It is the ethics of domination.
When you are the sole hold-out to redevelopment, the other property owners can throw you off your property to cash-in on the largess?
Obviously, the Non-Aggression-Principle has mixed acceptance in the LP.
Hmmmm...
John
Marcy,
I appreciate your apology, but see no need for you to apologize for the hateful, but fashionable, words of someone else. My statement was not about the nudity debate or the various ideas that pass for liberty.
All the best,
Don
NO, NO, NO, NO. I am not suggesting that they are trying to dictate that others
not wear any clothes. I never said anything even remotely suggesting that. I am
saying that they do NOT own the property on which they are doing their thing and
therefore they do NOT have exclusive right to decide what they can do on it just
as I do not have a right to enter your home and smoke a cigar unless you choose
to allow it.
I am not sure what point you are making. None of these people are actually on
the property of the people they might be offending. I am all in favor of the
right of people to cross-dress, but I would not allow it in my home.
I live in a condo association. There are private areas where people have almost
total control over what they do and there are common areas where the majority
(through the Board of Directors) rules.
Les
Les,
The whole point of public property or commons, imho, is so that people can have a space where they are *guaranteed* to be able to exercise certain basic rights -- freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be naked, freedom of movement, etc., without having to first secure the permission of some property owner, so long as they are not initiating force or fraud against others. To the extent this principle is abridged, it just becomes a dictatorship of the majority (or more realistically, whoever can muster the political clout to get the politicians to decide the matter in their favor).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
A better phrasing of what I described below as "the right to be naked" would be "the right of people to wear what they choose, including wearing little or nothing if they so choose".
Remember the explanation articulated in the "Philosophy of Liberty" video, http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf : We cannot give to others rights which we do not possess ourselves. If one person was offended by someone's manner of public dress (or undress) and everyone else felt it was okay, he or she would have no right to use the guns of government to interfere with that person's choice, Q.E.D. that right is not magically acquired simply because it is not one person but a majority, or a sizable number of people, who are offended.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I don't understand why you think that nudists have a right to impose their
nudity on everyone else. One person's rights are always circumscribed by other
persons' rights. Some people might want to live in non-nudist environment and
their rights have to be respected too.
Les,
I hope you can see and acknowledge that in libertarian terms (i.e. whether there is any force or fraud involved that would justify a government law), going nude in public is no more of an imposition on anyone than is wearing clothes in public.
There is no question that those offended by public nudity are far more numerous than those offended by the absence of such nudity, but rights are neither created by majorities nor dependent upon the number of people who wish to exercise them (or who wish them not to be exercised).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
1 Like
OK, so what if I want to live in a non-nudist environment? Are my rights to be
squashed in favor some other person who wants to impose his/her nudity on me?
"Freedom of movement!" I seem to recall that you supported the rights of
Occupiers to disrupt the commute of other people who were attempting to exercise
their right of freedom of movement thru the commons.
No, I do not see or acknowledge that at all. When one is on common, shared,
public space, one has to respect the rights of others.
Les,
You don't have a "right" to live in a naked-people-free-environment any more than you have a right to somebody's work. In essence, you are demanding they buy and wear clothes to suit your whim.
Would you demand that they wash the street for you, too?
And when will someone else, on this list, look at the externalities? Do we need a more powerful government? Do we need to distract law enforcement? Do we need more whiners and malcontents?
All of this so some people can have a more pleasant view, for free?
John
But what are those rights in this case, Les? Surely you do not think there is any *right* not to see people nude, or not to be offended? What could possibly be the philosophical basis for such "rights"?
I think you'd be on sounder ground to simply acknowledge that bans on public nudity are not libertarian, and that this is an area where your views are not libertarian. There's no particular shame in that, imho -- I think most of us, even the hardcore libertarians, have a few such views. In my case, for instance, I do not want people to be able to own nuclear weapons. However, I think the *Libertarian Party* should never go against the libertarian position, the libertarian position in the case of nukes being that the mere possession of any object is not a crime, and the libertarian position in the case of public nudity being that since it does not involve initiating force or fraud, it should likewise be legal.
Having a party which takes the libertarian position 100% of the time, even in the few cases where we may personally think the libertarian position is not the best position, will help ensure that we have a party we can trust and count on to be principled and consistent on a sustainable basis.
Allowing the Libertarian Party to take non-libertarian positions on controversial issues like nudity is a slippery slope, because once you allow it to take some "reasonable" non-libertarian position in response to someone's demands, there will always be someone else to come along and argue that another non-libertarian position is equally reasonable, and another, and another.
I would also remind everyone of the LP's membership pledge, which each of us had to sign in order to be a voting member in the party (see https://www.lp.org/membership ):
"I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals."
I realize that no one has said anything about seeking to have the LP (or the LPSF) take any position other than opposing the nudity ban, and I certainly hope no one is advocating this; I just wanted to make my thoughts on that clear should it happen to be in anyone's head.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Les,
Outside of private property, I don't think there is any right to live in a non-nudist environment, just as I don't think there is any right to live in a clothes-free environment. Again, what could be the philosophical basis for such "rights"?
Do I support the right of people to hold protests which slow down commuting? Certainly. I also support the right of people to commute in a manner which interferes with a protest. I think where I would draw the line is when someone is actively, physically blocking someone else's progress across the commons (and not just by virtue of being part of a large, closely packed crowd, for instance, but is actively trying on the spot to prevent specific individuals from making their way across the commons to their destinations by the shortest and easiest path). I would seek to apply this standard equally to protesters seeking to block commuters, and people seeking to block a protest march. Admittedly this could in practice easily get into gray areas and subjective judgment calls, but I can't think of a standard that seems fairer.
Love & Liberty,
((( stachild )))