Mike:
This sounds like a great idea. I volunteer to be on the female
judging committee.
-Derek
I think there needs to be a private "good looks" judging agency, the
aesthetic equivalent of Underwriters Laboratories for electrical
devices. Only those who meet their exacting independent standards
would
be allowed to walk around naked. It could be funded by a fee paid
to the
agency for the evaluation. Those on the aesthetic margins would
have to
pay a higher premium. The agency would have insurance to cover
aesthetic
damage claims should their decision be flawed. Certainly Starchild
would
be given a pass with a low cost premium.
:>)
Mike
________________________________
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-
discuss@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Derek Jensen
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:27 AM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Idea for an LPSF brochure on the
surveillance society & threat of a police state
Starchild:
Maybe to some "why not let them buy their own healthcare" or "why
not
let them buy their own housing" sounds like "let them eat cake".
It's a slippery slope once you cross the line of compelling the use
of someone's private property for another's use. In this case, it
woudl be compelling american airlines, etc. to permit you to travel
naked.
On a related topic, I'm not sure I support the right of adults to
walk around starko in public. I need to think about it more. My
initial instinct is to not support a law banning it, but I think we
need to give some consideration to millenia of human civilization
in
which this was not acceptable.
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com> , Starchild <sfdreamer@>
wrote:
>
> Derek,
>
> Traveling while nude was just an example, but if nudity is
libertine,
> then all of us are born libertines. Sometimes going without
clothes
is
> just more comfortable, isn't it? I'm sure even you take your
clothes
> off to shower. 8) If someone happens to see you so engaged,
what
> harm follows to either you or to him or her? "Why not just buy
your
own
> airplane?" sounds a lot to me like "let them eat cake."
>
> Love & liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
>
>
> > Starchild:
> >
> > If you want to travel to Hawaii in the nude and no one that
owns
an
> > airplane will let you, why not just buy your own airplane?
> >
> > To me, this touches on the debate of Libertarian vs. Libertine.
I
> > see these concepts blurred far too often.
> >
> > -Derek
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com> , <dredelstein@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Starchild,
> >
> > >
> > > These are problems, but not rights violations. Consequently,
> > outlawing this would be a rights violation in itself.
> > >
> > > Best, Michael
> > >
> > > From: Starchild
> > > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:39 PM
> > > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Idea for an LPSF brochure on the
> > surveillance society & threat of a police state
> > >
> > >
> > > Derek,
> > >
> > > I see several problems with the present use of security
cameras
by
> > private companies.
> > >
> > > One is that the images from these cameras can easily be
acquired by
> > government in most cases, so it becomes little different than
having
> > more government cameras out there. How many business owners or
> > managers, if approached by the police and asked to turn over
video
> > footage to help them apprehend a criminal or something, are
going
to
> > say no or really ask the tough questions? How many will bother
to
> > inform the public, or the people whose data is being handed
over,
> > when such an incident occurs?
> > >
> > > Another problem is something I've been thinking more about
lately,
> > which is that the nature of "government" isn't so black and
white
as
> > we libertarians traditionally tend to see it. While the free
market
> > does (eventually and not infallibly) tend to punish rights-
violations
> > and restrictions on freedom imposed by private companies in a
way
in
> > which governments are not similarly accountable, in the
meantime
*the
> > restrictions still exist.* Ultimately a limitation on freedom
is a
> > limitation on freedom, whether or not it amounts to a rights-
> > violation under libertarian theory.
> > >
> > > I don't want a world where people are merely *technically*
free
> > according to a strict application of the non-aggression
principle
but
> > in practice are highly constrained in their choices (e.g. you
*can*
> > travel to Hawaii in the nude, but since no airline would allow
it, it
> > would probably be a difficult and expensive proposition.) I
want a
> > world where people in fact have a wide range of choices and
actions
> > available to them so long as those choices and actions don't
violate
> > the rights of others. When I was on my Hawaiian cruise, I was
> > thinking about how the cruise ship was like a little country,
with
> > the captain as dictator. Sure it's a benevolent dictatorship
and
as a
> > private company they are generally more responsive to customer
> > complaints and their rules are usually more sensible than would
be
> > true of, say, the FDA, but that doesn't change the fact that
while I
> > was on board my freedom was limited in many unnecessary ways. As
> > William Safire said, having the right to do something (e.g. not
> > letting your passengers use the swimming pools, basketball,
> > volleyball or ping pong equipment at night at their own risk)
does
> > not necessarily make it the right thing to do. (I would have
liked to
> > sign a waiver assuming personal responsibility, but of course
that
> > wasn't an option.) I have a theorem that the more resources a
company
> > (or other NGO for that matter) has at its disposal and the more
> > things it controls, the more it tends to take on many of the
anti-
> > freedom characteristics of governments. Conversely, a very small
> > government with few resources may not be terribly dangerous in
the
> > short run, even if its power is virtually unlimited in theory.
> > >
> > > In short, I think society is better off without people
routinely
> > having tons of video images of them collected without their
> > permission permission whether it's "the government" doing it or
not.
> > The potential for abuse, and the negative psychological effects
of
> > being under surveillance are still there. Not to mention the
> > psychological effects on those conducting the surveillance.
You've
> > probably heard of the "Stanford Prison Guards" experiment where
> > students in the study changed their behavior and began to act
in
an
> > authoritarian manner as they were given guard power over
others. I
> > want companies to interact with me as a human being, not an ant
under
> > their microscopes.
> > >
> > > Yet a third problem is that the proliferation of businesses
using
> > cameras is that it gets people used to having their images
recorded
> > and stored on video without their consent. It sets a bad
precedent,
> > and makes it that much easier for government to get away with
similar
> > and worse privacy violations.
> > >
> > > If companies took more publicly verifiable precautions to
keep
the
> > information they gathered from falling into the hands of
government,
> > and people had greater access to the information companies
collected
> > about them, it would be less of an issue. And of course in a
free
> > society where we didn't have to worry about what government
might
do
> > with the data, it would be a lot less of an issue. It's mostly
in
the
> > present dangerous climate that it's a major concern. I assume
you
> > would at least agree that use of RFID technology in products
and
as
> > implantable chips in humans is a bad thing under the current
state of
> > affairs?
> > >
> > > Love & liberty,
> > > <<< starchild >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Starchild:
> > >
> > > I don't understand the problem you have with private
businesses