Total Posts:105|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Public Nudity

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:00:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Should females be allowed to walk around a public park without a top, exposing their bare breasts?

How about pants? Should people be allowed to have sex out in the open in public parks?

I'm interested in what the libertarian crowd here thinks and why it thinks that way.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:03:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I personally think that having people walk around nude would serve more as a distraction than anything else. Why focus on doing what you're doing when you could just stare at a guy's dick instead?
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:05:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:00:49 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Should females be allowed to walk around a public park without a top, exposing their bare breasts?

How about pants? Should people be allowed to have sex out in the open in public parks?

I'm interested in what the libertarian crowd here thinks and why it thinks that way.

Privatize and let the owners decide.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:06:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:03:47 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I personally think that having people walk around nude would serve more as a distraction than anything else. Why focus on doing what you're doing when you could just stare at a guy's dick instead?

It's not a workplace, it's a park. You're there to relax and have fun.
Obviously, employers can set whatever rules they want for the workplace. Sure, be as naked or as penetrated as you want in public. It's not initiating force against anyone.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:08:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:05:46 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:00:49 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Should females be allowed to walk around a public park without a top, exposing their bare breasts?

How about pants? Should people be allowed to have sex out in the open in public parks?

I'm interested in what the libertarian crowd here thinks and why it thinks that way.

Privatize and let the owners decide.

This park exists by virtue of no one having built there.

No one wants to build there for some hypothetical reason

Either advocate conscripting someone into privatizing or answer now ^)^
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:09:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:06:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:03:47 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I personally think that having people walk around nude would serve more as a distraction than anything else. Why focus on doing what you're doing when you could just stare at a guy's dick instead?

It's not a workplace, it's a park. You're there to relax and have fun.
Obviously, employers can set whatever rules they want for the workplace. Sure, be as naked or as penetrated as you want in public. It's not initiating force against anyone.

Where do you draw the line though? Why have nudity legal in one place and not another? If it's legal in one place there's no way to stop people from demanding it to be legal in another. If this expanded to workplaces it would just be too distracting. I suppose places of leisure are fine though such as swimming pools. I know there's many pools in Europe that you're not even allowed entering unless you're nude. As for having sex, save it for the bedroom.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:14:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As Ragnar said, nudity and public sex do not initiate force.

Banning public nudity is like banning cursing in public.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:14:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:09:36 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:06:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:03:47 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I personally think that having people walk around nude would serve more as a distraction than anything else. Why focus on doing what you're doing when you could just stare at a guy's dick instead?

It's not a workplace, it's a park. You're there to relax and have fun.
Obviously, employers can set whatever rules they want for the workplace. Sure, be as naked or as penetrated as you want in public. It's not initiating force against anyone.

Where do you draw the line though?
Lol, isn't that cute, she thinks I draw a line.

Why have nudity legal in one place and not another?
It's legal in both. In one, however, it's private property, and the owner can forbid things without them being "outlawed."

If this expanded to workplaces it would just be too distracting.
Depends what kind of workplace-- and that is for the owner to decide.

As for having sex, save it for the bedroom.
Why do you care? You're not the one getting ****ed.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:15:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In an area that is owned, the owner can decide. In an area that is unowned, there is no regulation. Nudity and sex are not violent actions against anyone so I see no reason to restrict them.

INH, why do you think it is okay to initiate violence against someone because you disapprove of their clothing choices?
Sangers
Posts: 419
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:16:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:14:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:09:36 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:06:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:03:47 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I personally think that having people walk around nude would serve more as a distraction than anything else. Why focus on doing what you're doing when you could just stare at a guy's dick instead?

It's not a workplace, it's a park. You're there to relax and have fun.
Obviously, employers can set whatever rules they want for the workplace. Sure, be as naked or as penetrated as you want in public. It's not initiating force against anyone.

Where do you draw the line though?
Lol, isn't that cute, she thinks I draw a line.

Why have nudity legal in one place and not another?
It's legal in both. In one, however, it's private property, and the owner can forbid things without them being "outlawed."

If this expanded to workplaces it would just be too distracting.
Depends what kind of workplace-- and that is for the owner to decide.

As for having sex, save it for the bedroom.
Why do you care? You're not the one getting ****ed.

Win
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:18:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:15:37 PM, Grape wrote:
In an area that is owned, the owner can decide. In an area that is unowned, there is no regulation. Nudity and sex are not violent actions against anyone so I see no reason to restrict them.

INH, why do you think it is okay to initiate violence against someone because you disapprove of their clothing choices?

Who said I was initiating violence? Banning something because it's distasteful(not to mention, extremely distracting) isn't violent at all. Nudity is fine in some places; there's a time and place for everything. The work place isn't somewhere where nudity would be beneficial.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:20:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:18:32 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:15:37 PM, Grape wrote:
In an area that is owned, the owner can decide. In an area that is unowned, there is no regulation. Nudity and sex are not violent actions against anyone so I see no reason to restrict them.

INH, why do you think it is okay to initiate violence against someone because you disapprove of their clothing choices?

Who said I was initiating violence? Banning something because it's distasteful(not to mention, extremely distracting) isn't violent at all.
Banning is ALWAYS violent. A ban has no meaning save "Don't do that or I WILL F*** YOU UP." No one would listen to some unarmed toddler who said "I ban this."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:22:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Think about this: who would want to see a nude fat hairy guy walking around? That would be way more distracting than seeing him clothed.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:23:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:22:19 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Think about this: who would want to see a nude fat hairy guy walking around? That would be way more distracting than seeing him clothed.

Maybe it would be distracting to you. The rest of us would just not look.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:23:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:18:32 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:15:37 PM, Grape wrote:
In an area that is owned, the owner can decide. In an area that is unowned, there is no regulation. Nudity and sex are not violent actions against anyone so I see no reason to restrict them.

INH, why do you think it is okay to initiate violence against someone because you disapprove of their clothing choices?

Who said I was initiating violence? Banning something because it's distasteful(not to mention, extremely distracting) isn't violent at all. Nudity is fine in some places; there's a time and place for everything. The work place isn't somewhere where nudity would be beneficial.

How the heck are you a Libertarian??

Banning / Laws = Violence

How do police enforce laws? Violent force.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:24:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:23:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

How the heck are you a Libertarian??

Banning / Laws = Violence

How do police enforce laws? Violent force.

I'm an economic libertarian only.
Sangers
Posts: 419
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:24:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:22:19 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Think about this: who would want to see a nude fat hairy guy walking around? That would be way more distracting than seeing him clothed.

Just because a few's distracted, the act warrants a ban?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:25:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:24:05 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:23:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

How the heck are you a Libertarian??

Banning / Laws = Violence

How do police enforce laws? Violent force.

I'm an economic libertarian only.

Hai Pinochet. Stick with the economics then.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:26:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:25:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:24:05 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:23:16 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

How the heck are you a Libertarian??

Banning / Laws = Violence

How do police enforce laws? Violent force.

I'm an economic libertarian only.

Hai Pinochet. Stick with the economics then.

Hai Randian Bot.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:27:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Obviously, I think all parks should be privatized, but if it's a public park, the rules should be set democratically by the taxpayers who are forced to maintain it.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:27:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think people have adequate addressing the follow up I intended. Making something illegal on paper doesn't do anything. You have to use force against people to enforce the law. In order to support the law, you have to accept that using force is acceptable in that instance. Just because we don't like something doesn't mean we should attack innocent people to prevent it.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:30:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:27:24 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Obviously, I think all parks should be privatized, but if it's a public park, the rules should be set democratically by the taxpayers who are forced to maintain it.

The taxes aren't democratic. Indeed, the people who pay the most taxes are probably the least likely to support anti nudity laws.

also doesn't address the "park by virtue of no one happening to build there" possibility.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:30:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:27:24 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Obviously, I think all parks should be privatized , but if it's a public park, the rules should be set democratically by the taxpayers who are forced to maintain it.

The bolded part I just took for granted. However, aren't you just arguing that two wrongs make a right? The taxpayers were unjustly required to fund the park, so they should unjustly prevent people from using it as they wish? Or are you viewing it as some perverse kind of forced collective ownership?

I would like to see the park privately owned and free, but I'd settle for either.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:32:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:27:24 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Obviously, I think all parks should be privatized, but if it's a public park, the rules should be set democratically by the taxpayers who are forced to maintain it.

WTF
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:35:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:32:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:27:24 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Obviously, I think all parks should be privatized, but if it's a public park, the rules should be set democratically by the taxpayers who are forced to maintain it.

WTF

If I'm forced to pay for it, I should have some say in how it's run.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:40:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:30:11 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
also doesn't address the "park by virtue of no one happening to build there" possibility.

You don't have to build something on a plot of land to homestead it. Regardless, if the land is unowned, you can engage in pre-marital, interracial, gay sex with a goat while burning an American flag and cutting up a Bible for all I care.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:40:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:35:57 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

If I'm forced to pay for it, I should have some say in how it's run.

That makes little sense to me. If someone mugs you and takes your money, you think it would be more just if you gave him some suggestions on what to spend it on? Your money has already been taken so I don't see what the point is after that. The fact that you're allowed to have some say is a nice privilege but it's not rooted in anything.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:42:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:08:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:05:46 PM, djsherin wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:00:49 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Should females be allowed to walk around a public park without a top, exposing their bare breasts?

How about pants? Should people be allowed to have sex out in the open in public parks?

I'm interested in what the libertarian crowd here thinks and why it thinks that way.

Privatize and let the owners decide.

This park exists by virtue of no one having built there.

No one wants to build there for some hypothetical reason

Either advocate conscripting someone into privatizing or answer now ^)^

Isn't it cute? He thinks the government ceasing to own the park is something other than privatization. Once privatized, the point is of course moot. Public nudity (which, incidentally, I've been jailed for--disgraceful, yes, but better than banishment, the atomic level of a confinement of which there is no limit and the result of displeasing a governor small enough in scope, lineage, democratic accountability or libertarian restraint to be considered a landlord), by whatever name, will be permissible with at most the low frequency at which it's permissible in the current private sector. This is true whether the park remains a park or, more likely, is replaced by condos.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 8:50:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 8:40:18 PM, Grape wrote:
At 2/7/2011 8:35:57 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

If I'm forced to pay for it, I should have some say in how it's run.

That makes little sense to me. If someone mugs you and takes your money, you think it would be more just if you gave him some suggestions on what to spend it on? Your money has already been taken so I don't see what the point is after that. The fact that you're allowed to have some say is a nice privilege but it's not rooted in anything.

Would you rather have the Federal Reserve run by a few powerful people who meet behind closed doors and aren't accountable to anyone, or would you prefer some Congressional oversight? Obviously, I want to abolish the Fed, and I don't see this as a huge improvement, but at least then it would be indirectly answerable to the public.

Taxation and mugging are always unjust. Unlike the mugger who is at least honest in his intentions, the government steals from us claiming that it's for our own good. Insofar as that's the stated goal, it makes sense to allow the public to determine how best to run the property they have involuntarily and illegitimately been made owner of.