Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LeopardPM]

penguin, isn't the problem with the 'public' part?  Do you care if people have orgies on their private property?  If you would rather not view these obscene circumstances, can you imagine any way that private individuals can, without force or government, make sure that they or their children will not be within view of such activities?

I expect to be able to conduct my public business without having to dodge orgies or people dealing and shooting heroin.

what is 'public' business?  don't you deal with people?  where does all this 'public' come from?

just wondering,
michael

[penguinsscareme]

If there's a well-soundproofed private bordello or drug den between me and my destination, I couldn't care less.

That's the next sentence, the one right after you stopped reading, evidently.
Public business is any business that takes me on public ways or to public places.  I suppose if the road from my house to the city hall is privately owned then I have no recourse.
Look, this is getting way outside the scope of reality here.  I'm certainly not going to go try and recruit people on the "public orgies and drug binges" platform.
As a wise man once said, you strain at a gnat but you swallow a camel.

[Morpheus]

I am offended by people reading their Bibles [Or Torahs or Korans] and praying in Public. I shouldn't have to see it, and there should be a Law against it. Furthermore, anyone wearing a cross [or crescent moon, or star of david] should be arrested on sight. I shouldn't have to be exposed to such religious filth.

I also don't like to see churches [or synagogues or mosques] on my way. My children shouldn't have to see it either. There should be specific places where they are allowed and NOT allowed- at my convenience, of course.

[penguinsscareme]

Move to China.

[Morpheus]

My children shouldn't have to see it either. So there. And screw you if you disagree, because you hate children.

[Morpheus]

YOU move to ISRAEL! Go where your offensive, godly filth is fully endorsed and encouraged.

And your telling me to move to China was offensive. You should be arrested and fined for hurting my feelings like that.

[penguinsscareme]

Enough, enough.  I'm not finding this humorous.
One of us needs to go stick his head in a bucket of cold water.
Let's have this argument after we've gotten to 20,000.
My point is that we're not going to reach that number if we try to invoke Constitutional protection for orgies and drug use on the courthouse steps as equal in validity to the right to be Catholic, Jewish, atheist or whatever.
You are arguing from a position of outright stupidity, and your satirical tone seems to indicate that you know it.
Look, you can malign me as a fascist nazi, but I'm just not able to endorse public orgies or drug use as a matter of conscience and common sense.
If you want to endorse cannabis bars like they have in Amsterdam, or private whorehouses like in Vegas, go ahead.  I'll sign on to that.  I'm in favor of personal freedom and individual rights and no vice laws.
But if you seriously want to take a hard line on this public orgy and drug use thing as a Constitutional right, you're going to have a real tough time.
Just try and pull your head out of this libertarian utopia that you're living in and smell the reality for a second.  Some famous libertarian who was obviously a lot smarter than you once said, I am first in favor of liberty, and then in favor of what works.  The same guy also said, when asked how much liberty does he want for the people, As much as they can handle.  I wish I still had that issue of Liberty magazine so I could tell you who it was.
Pick battles you can win.
Being right and being stupid are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I am not your enemy.  Instead of berating me for not wanting public orgies, go do something useful for the project.

[LeopardPM]

I wasn't berating you - I was pointing out that it is very possible to concieve of a community wherein your desire, to have anything to do with or even view sexual behavior, is satisfied - AND, in that same community, have people have whatever wanton sex they desire:  all through the use of private property, deeds, covenants, easements and neighborhood associations.  No need for government coercion etc...

yes, of course we don't run on a platform of 'Happy Public Sex Orgies' - but, when we are asked if we, as liberty thinkers, believe that orgies should be allowed.... would you decide then to lie?  What I present is an acceptable (hopefully) argument which allows all manner of private activities to occur without the offending of statists (is it possible?)

michael

[penguinsscareme]

Look, I don't know how to be any clearer.  What happens on private property is private business, whether it's an orphanage or a bordello.  I have no problem with that, and if asked I will say so.
But Morpheus is equating having a fat orgy on the sidewalk in front of city hall with praying in public.  I'm sorry, that goes beyond the limits of my abilities to tolerate.  The very premise is so foolish I hardly know how to rebut it.
I never, ever said orgies should not be allowed.  But they shouldn't be allowed in public.  There, I said it.
All this talk about leaving everything up to the judgement of the individual -- how about showing enough judgement to realize this is a loser issue?  New Hampshire natives will hate us, and prospective members will fear us if we don't back off of this crap.  It just makes New Hampshire sound like the kind of place where no one of any decent character would want to live.  It is impossible to win this argument on a libertarian absolutist platform.  It's just not going to fly.
This sort of idiocy has got to stop if we're going to have any realistic expectation of casting a wide net.
I believe that most hardcore freedom lovers are people of exceptionally high moral character who will be quite put off by a perceived advocacy of wanton debauchery.
It's one thing to tacitly support the individual's right to engage in any sort of behavior they wish provided they don't infringe on anyone else, but this vehement flaunting of base, immoral practice is totally irresponsible.  It's getting to where people are going around looking for ways to be offensive.  Look at me, I have the right to be offensive and no one can stop me!  Like it or not, every word that gets posted on this forum represents the fsp, and people judge us -- fairly or not -- based on what they read here.  Especially the prospective members section.
So again I say, let's get to 20,000, then move to the Free State, and after we've kicked out the federal government, and abolished stupid taxes, and about a hundred other issues, then let's worry about where to have the orgies.
One other thing.  Everybody who had a say in the Constitution had to make changes, concessions and bargains.  No one got everything they wanted.  But they got a pretty good Constitution, and they got it ratified.  A good plan that works is better than a perfect plan that doesn't work.

[ethanpooley]

I am a libertarian because I am convinced that government must be as principled as possible, due to the differences and shortcomings of individuals (and humanity collectively). So when considering whether something should be outlawed, my first question is always, 'on what principle would it be outlawed?'

Public orgies, for example, would be outlawed on the basis of 'common decency', an appeal to a majority opinion. Now when it comes right down to it, murder is outlawed by majority opinion as well, so this is not in itself a damning thing. Morality might motivate individuals, but it cannot really be said to be the foundation of a law. The immediate foundation of a law is the majority opinion, be their motivation what it may. But a law against public orgies is a majority opinion about something very different than is a law against murder.

So the principle here is, 'if it is indecent, it should not be allowed in public'. My second question is, 'do I trust the majority to apply the principle?', and here the answer is no. While I am not worried about the majority deciding that wearing a religious symbol is tantamount to murder (at least, not worried enough to want to allow murder!), I am worried about the majority deciding that wearing a religous symbol is as indecent as participating in an orgy. Especially when you recast 'indecent' as 'distasteful', which is more accurately descriptive of the visceral rule the majority would actually apply.

So I trust the government with the power to outlaw unjust things (such as murder, but as defined by the majority), but not with the power to outlaw indecent things (such as orgies, but as defined by the majority). Additionally, I ask myself whether I feel I have a right to restrict the action in question: government aside, would I be justified in using force to stop someone from committing the action? If the answer is no, then again it seems something that government should not be involved in. I don't want my children (or any children, frankly!) to see orgies on the way to school, but I wouldn't feel justified in using force to stop the act, or in using force to apply a deterent (such as a fine) to the act. The first would be like physically forcing the orgy to stop (if I was able to overpower them) at the time, the second would be like showing up at the orgyists (sp? ) house after school and taking $30 from their wallet, again if I was able to overpower them. Whereas with murder, yeah I feel justified in forcing someone to stop committing murder, assuming I can overpower them.

Problems arise when outlawing indecent things in public settings as well. For example, what happens in our society when a person who doesn't want to wear any clothing is defrauded of some money? He can't take his complaint to court, can he? Not without putting some clothes on first. And so our less-important rights, like the right to not see naked people on the street (seems weird to call it a right at all, but for arguments sake...) end up creating conditions on what are supposed to be fundamental rights, such as the right to one's property.

[penguinsscareme]

For example, what happens in our society when a person who doesn't want to wear any clothing is defrauded of some money?

 ???Where was he keeping the money?

[bostnfound]

I believe that most hardcore freedom lovers are people of exceptionally high moral character who will be quite put off by a perceived advocacy of wanton debauchery.

Since when is an orgy immoral?  I would be much more comfortable seeing an orgy on a city street than a nativity scene or a statute of Lincoln.   I also would be more comfortable having my children see such an orgy.

No one is advocating having orgies spring up from street corner to street corner.  However we are advocating that if you see it, the gestapo shouldn't be called in to stop it.

As to high moral character, I agree, but our moral structure is obviously different.  My morals are based upon not taking the life, liberty or property of others.  What is your moral structure based upon?

A good plan that works is better than a perfect plan that doesn't work.

I will put it in the terms of thiests.  Should God compromise with the Devil if it meant they could come up with plan for earth more quickly?  Zero Aggression is right.  There should be no compromise on this situation.  Libertarian theory is based on being morally right as well as economically right.  Compromising on the basis of the theory totally debunks the simplicity of the theory itself.  

Aggression=Bad

Also, how can a perfect plan not work?  

[penguinsscareme]

Furball, the problem is we're not in a vacuum.  This isn't a lab experiment or a purely philosophical discussion conducted within a controlled environment.  There is a real-world situation that we must acknowledge.

Years ago I lived in downtown Worcester, MA.  I walked to work every day, passing the "art theater" coming and going -- twice a day every day.  And the windows were blacked out, and there was no way to see inside from the street.  Yet if I wanted to go inside and patronize their business, I was perfectly free to do so.
Why is that not enough?
I am simply not able and not going to support a push to allow public orgies and public drug use.
What's more important, the Granite State rank and file are not going to support it.   :'(  Curse you, reality!  Curse you!
Two years ago, a Democrat named Shannon O'Brien ran against a Republican -- a non-Massachusetts native at that -- named Mitt Romney (you may remember him from the 2000 Olympics).  Massachusetts is an overwhelmingly Democrat state.  But nearly every swing vote in the state (votes from people who are not registered with either party) went Romney's way.  There were a number of factors, of course, but one of the most significant issues, probably the one that turned more soccermoms against O'Brien than any other issue, was abortion.  O'Brien lost what might have been a winnable race because she wanted free (taxpayer-funded), no-questions-asked, no parental consent -- or even knowledge! -- abortions on demand for girls as young as sixteen.  It's not that Romney pasted her on this issue; she gave as good as she got during the debates, and defended her position adequately.  But the voters were simply not ready for such a drastic policy.  She lost a race she might have won because she would not back down from the most controversial issue on her agenda.  Because nine tenths wasn't good enough, because she demanded all or nothing, she completely screwed the pooch.
There are issues we can use to win popular support.  Taxes.  Property rights.  The list is long.  But this is not one of those.  We can not win this.  Let's not make enemies of New Hampshirites before we even get there.  The approach thus far has been to work within already existing framework to get what we can.  Let's show some discernment between what we can and can not hope to get.  New Hampshire won because it's a conducive climate to our goals.  If we intended from the start to go toe to toe on stuff we have no chance of winning, we should have picked based on weather.  Then we could all chase futility in Hawaii instead of New Hampshire.  At least we'd be warm.

[bostnfound]

I am simply not able and not going to support a push to allow public orgies and public drug use.

There are issues we can use to win popular support.  Taxes.  

Where do you think the money comes to ban drug use?  Without taxes this point is moot.

Should we ban smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol in public too?

[penguinsscareme]

Should we ban smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol in public too?

So you're just determined to keep this discussion outside the realm of reality then?
Okay.  Well good luck with your agenda.  Let me know how that works out for you.
This shrill antagonism crap isn't going to get us anywhere.
Stop using the word "should," first of all.  Consider first whether we CAN get popular support for public orgies and drug use.  Obviously the question is so preposterous as to be hardly worth asking.
Textbook libertarian downfall:  all rhetoric, no action.  Can't see the forest for all the trees.
Get your head out of the clouds and get to work!
If you're really determined to push the issue, go here
http://freestateproject.org/getinvolved/liaisons/index.jsp
I'm sure Chris will be happy to set up a liaison for you so you can reach out to all those people who think it's a vitally important issue.  I doubt you'll get much feedback, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Just don't expect much cooperation from NH natives on your platform.