My question for Libertarians - should it be legal to masturbate in public?

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by jtgain

The legislature? Courts? But in a society with libertarian ideals these legislators and judges would have an individual's freedom placed higher on the pole. Things like outlawing drug possession on private property and seat belt laws would never pass muster.

Then I call bullshit.

If libertarian laws are being enacted by legislatures and enforced by courts then libertarian laws are just ordinary laws. Libertarians just call them something different because they want to sound cool.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Libertarians just call them something different because they want to sound cool.

Are you actually insinuating that Libertarians are so stupid they think that the moronic things they say sound cool? That's really harsh dude. Yes it's true, but it's really, really harsh. Couldn't we just call them 'special' instead?

[Linden Arden]

Originally Posted by Nars Glinley

Linden Arden, would you please define libertarian in non-masturbatory terms? And when you say masturbating, do you mean fully exposed or being covered up? I don't think that being a libertarian means that you believe that indecent exposure is impossible.

No, I am letting OTHERS define "Libertarian" since I don't claim to be such.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Then I call bullshit.

If libertarian laws are being enacted by legislatures and enforced by courts then libertarian laws are just ordinary laws. Libertarians just call them something different because they want to sound cool.

IANA Libertarian, but I don't think that "libertarian laws" would be functionally different from conservative, liberal, Democrat, or Republican laws. They would follow the same structure as current law, but with an eye toward individual freedom. I don't think that they advocate scrapping the Constitution and starting over.

Even a law that provided that the government sell the public roads to Acme Corp. would still be done under the current structure. What did you have in mind that would be so radically different that would make them not enforced by courts or enacted by a legislature?

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Then I call bullshit.

If libertarian laws are being enacted by legislatures and enforced by courts then libertarian laws are just ordinary laws. Libertarians just call them something different because they want to sound cool.

And, otherwise, if libertarian legislatures and libertarian courts never blunder or succumb to corruption or become foolishly emotional, and never pass "bad" laws -- then they violate nearly every precept we know of human nature.

The whole "divided government" thing seems to be the best solution anyone has ever devised. (Maybe even the only solution.)

[humblebumble]

If public masturbation was made legal than other acts involving indecent exposure would have to made legal.

[furt]

Originally Posted by jtgain

My understand of libertarianism is that an individual has a right to do what he wants SO LONG AS his freedoms don't interfere with freedoms of another.

Exactly so.

I fully agree that the strict libertarian idea of do whatever in the hell you want is absurd and cannot happen in a society.

That's not a strict "libertarian idea." It's a ridiculous and silly idea that nobody real person actually holds.

IANA Libertarian, but I don't think that "libertarian laws" would be functionally different from conservative, liberal, Democrat, or Republican laws. They would follow the same structure as current law, but with an eye toward individual freedom. I don't think that they advocate scrapping the Constitution and starting over.

Even a law that provided that the government sell the public roads to Acme Corp. would still be done under the current structure. What did you have in mind that would be so radically different that would make them not enforced by courts or enacted by a legislature?

Thanks for demonstrating that a person can comprehend even if they don't agree.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by furt

Exactly so.

Exactly what? "An individual has a right to do what he wants SO LONG AS his freedoms don't interfere with freedoms of another" doesn't answer the question that's been asked. It's just a nice-sounding slogan. Every political system sounds great when you read the bumper sticker version of it.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

So I should assume I can't step off my property without a signed agreement in place? How do I get to court to sue the guy who didn't honor the contract?

You don't need to imagine a libertarian society to answer this. There are already instances of this sort of thing. There is already private property that has no public access and requires crossing over someone else's property to get to public roads.

The way it works is you don't buy the property in the first place without an easement. Similarly, you wouldn't buy property in Libertopia without existing contracts that made sure you could get to where you wanted to (and made sure that no one could pull some bullshit like buying a 1-inch strip of land around your property and holding you hostage).

[Trinopus]

How can you "make sure" that nobody buys property that cuts you off from access to your own?

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

How can you "make sure" that nobody buys property that cuts you off from access to your own?

Same way you do now. You buy property that abuts a public highway or has an easement to the public highway.

You may say that in Libertopia there are no public highways, but there would be some equivalent pay access system to a privately run highway corporation. No way would it happen that every 11 feet you pay a toll. People wouldn't stand for such a business structure.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by jtgain

No way would it happen that every 11 feet you pay a toll. People wouldn't stand for such a business structure.

Why not? If I own the property, you have no power over what I charge to use my road. You are free to travel another route.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by jtgain

People wouldn't stand for such a business structure.

People wouldn't stand for it? How would that work? If people don't like something they just pass a law? For example if they don't like the way private toll roads work, they just pass a law and make all the roads government roads? How is that libertarian?

What does libertarian commitment to individual freedom mean if it stops as soon as the individual tries to do something the majority don't want him to do?

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3=

You don't need to imagine a libertarian society to answer this. There are already instances of this sort of thing. There is already private property that has no public access and requires crossing over someone else's property to get to public roads.

The way it works is you don't buy the property in the first place without an easement. Similarly, you wouldn't buy property in Libertopia without existing contracts that made sure you could get to where you wanted to (and made sure that no one could pull some bullshit like buying a 1-inch strip of land around your property and holding you hostage).

People generally don't buy property like that. I can't speak for every state, but I think generally you can't sell property under those circumstances without granting an easement or equivalent, which then gets interpreted by public policy without regard to the contract. And in Libertopia, there is no public property, no public access, so every piece of property has this problem. Of course there are common sense solutions to all these problems. It's what we do now. It doesn't work perfectly, but it works a hell of a lot better than all the alternatives, including Libertopia.

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

How can you "make sure" that nobody buys property that cuts you off from access to your own?

You make sure there are contracts in place with the owners that provide an easement that can't be revoked when they sell their property.

This really isn't that different from how things work now. An easement is a right you have over someone else's property, generally established by contract (although, sometimes established by adverse possession or some other sort of grandfathered-in way). So, if I have an easement to pass over your property, you can go ahead and sell that inch-wide strip to someone else. I'll still have an easement to pass over it, because you don't own that right, and can't sell it.

I'm not much of a libertarian, and I think there are serious problems with a libertarian society. But "someone will buy a thin strip of land around my property and hold me hostage" isn't one of them. That's been a solved problem for a long time.

[SecretaryofEvil]

Originally Posted by Victor Charlie

Are you preparing a defense?

That's the best first response I've read in some time.


The OP is demonstrating a pretty text book example of the No True Scotsman logical fallacy.

Too bad Diogenes got banned. Based on his namesake, he'd be the perfect poster for this question.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3=

You make sure there are contracts in place with the owners that provide an easement that can't be revoked when they sell their property.

This really isn't that different from how things work now. An easement is a right you have over someone else's property, generally established by contract (although, sometimes established by adverse possession or some other sort of grandfathered-in way). So, if I have an easement to pass over your property, you can go ahead and sell that inch-wide strip to someone else. I'll still have an easement to pass over it, because you don't own that right, and can't sell it.

I'm not much of a libertarian, and I think there are serious problems with a libertarian society. But "someone will buy a thin strip of land around my property and hold me hostage" isn't one of them. That's been a solved problem for a long time.

It's a solved problem because we're not libertarians. We've created things like easements which impose limits on what people can do with their own property (like prohibiting movement across it).

But libertarians believe in virtually absolute property rights. When those of us who aren't libertarians try to point out the problems that will arise from this, libertarians wave them away and say "those problems have already been solved." Well, yes, they have been - but libertarians are rejecting those solutions. So they need to either explain what the alternative solutions will be or acknowledge that the problems will exist in their system.

[Trinopus]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3=

. . . I'm not much of a libertarian, and I think there are serious problems with a libertarian society. But "someone will buy a thin strip of land around my property and hold me hostage" isn't one of them. That's been a solved problem for a long time.

What Little Nemo said: the problem has long been solved under our system of laws, but no one has been able to explain how it would work under a libertarian system of laws.

You said, "You make sure contracts are in place with the owners..." What if they don't choose to agree to those contracts? Under our current system of government, I can go to court and compel the creation of an easement, if, by some shifting set of circumstances I find myself cut off.

In some variants of libertarian law, that would also apply. No one can use their property to "hurt someone else," and holding them prisoner is a form of harm. But other libertarians deny that there is any non-market remedy for harm. These are the "over a barrel" or "by the short hairs" libertarians. But it is exactly because of predatory practices like this that our current system came into existence. Similarly, we only have anti-trust laws because of the rapacious behavior of the trusts. You might as well have said, "Make sure that no consortium of vendors colludes to fix prices." Sure... How?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

People wouldn't stand for it? How would that work? If people don't like something they just pass a law? For example if they don't like the way private toll roads work, they just pass a law and make all the roads government roads? How is that libertarian?

Maybe he means Second Amendment remedies...

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally Posted by Trinopus

What Little Nemo said: the problem has long been solved under our system of laws, but no one has been able to explain how it would work under a libertarian system of laws.

You said, "You make sure contracts are in place with the owners..." What if they don't choose to agree to those contracts? Under our current system of government, I can go to court and compel the creation of an easement, if, by some shifting set of circumstances I find myself cut off.

I assume they'd either be carried over from the system we have today (if you're imagining a transition from our current system to a libertarian system), or they'd be agreed upon by all the parties who voluntarily entered into the libertarian agreement to start the society in the first place (if you're imagining a Peter Thiel-style seasteading thing).

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3=

I assume they'd either be carried over from the system we have today (if you're imagining a transition from our current system to a libertarian system), or they'd be agreed upon by all the parties who voluntarily entered into the libertarian agreement to start the society in the first place (if you're imagining a Peter Thiel-style seasteading thing).

It greatly reduces the appeal of libertarianism if it needs a non-libertarian base to keep it functioning. That need raises the question of why we shouldn't discard the libertarian shell and use just the non-libertarian foundation?

[Omg a Black Conservative]

Originally Posted by Omg a Black Conservative

Based on such a criteria, you can't be a liberal either.

Hey, look. No one responded to this post. Color (hah!) me surprised.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

It's a solved problem because we're not libertarians. We've created things like easements which impose limits on what people can do with their own property (like prohibiting movement across it).

But libertarians believe in virtually absolute property rights. When those of us who aren't libertarians try to point out the problems that will arise from this, libertarians wave them away and say "those problems have already been solved." Well, yes, they have been - but libertarians are rejecting those solutions. So they need to either explain what the alternative solutions will be or acknowledge that the problems will exist in their system.

Oh, yeah, if you are talking about that type of libertarianism, I agree. Let's say that Acme Corp owned the roads in town. If your arch-nemesis worked for Acme, he could negotiate the sale of a one inch strip of land between your property and the road just for spite and profit. I agree that type of arrangement has no place in society. Does anyone disagree?

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Libertarians are just confused Republicans.

They see Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged as a viable 'philosophy' - when it's nothing of the sort. In fact, it's voodoo.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Oh, yeah, if you are talking about that type of libertarianism, I agree.

But if there's any point in talking about libertarianism, it should be to talk about the things that distinguish libertarianism from other systems.

Libertarians can say "We believe in good laws and social order and peace and justice and democracy and freedom and civil rights." And everyone else can answer "We believe in all those things too. So why be a libertarian? We can get everything you offer in our current system."

If libertarians want to convince people in their cause, they have to explain what libertarianism offers that you won't get in other non-libertarian systems.

And in general, an extreme version of property values is a primary example of something libertarianism offers that other systems do not.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by jtgain

Oh, yeah, if you are talking about that type of libertarianism, I agree. Let's say that Acme Corp owned the roads in town. If your arch-nemesis worked for Acme, he could negotiate the sale of a one inch strip of land between your property and the road just for spite and profit. I agree that type of arrangement has no place in society. Does anyone disagree?

I already have a pair of Acme Rocket Powered Roller Skates just in case my arch-nemesis tries something like this.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Omg a Black Conservative

Hey, look. No one responded to this post. Color (hah!) me surprised.

If you'd prefer to be colored (hah!) enlightened by a response, you should provide context. Yes, the board has disabled multiquote, but that shouldn't slow you down much. (It's liberals who are lazy. )

Anyway, your claim was

Originally Posted by Omg a Black Conservative

Based on such a criteria, you can't be a liberal either.

Your remark seems to assume that liberals are not "moralists." To the contrary, with one exception, all systems of society impose moral views on their citizens, though the details may vary.

The ancient Greeks forced heretics to drink hemlock, liberals force the rich to pay taxes to school the poor, Tea Partiers force rape victims to bear their rapists' children, et cetera, et cetera. Even anarchies like Somalia involve enforced views: "Kill whom we tell you to; don't kill whom we don't; disobey and we kill you."

The exception of course is Libertarianism (unless Greed is God is admitted as the sole "moral view").

Hope this helps.

[Little Nemo]

When somebody posted "If one says "No" they cannot be a Libertarian. They are a moralist authoritarian who wants the state to impose their moral views on its citizens." and OMG responded "Based on such a criteria, you can't be a liberal either." I was a little surprised. Was he really saying conservatives are the moralist authoritarians who wants the state to impose their moral views on its citizen?

It seemed unlikely, so I just assumed he had gotten confused.

[grude]

The libertarians who want absolutely no public property at all are a minority, most libertarians understand and concede that publically owned roads and highways are needed for proper functioning of a society. I don't understand why some continue to think a libertarian society would be possible to "crash" with absurd extremes and "gotchas!", such a society would be run and populated with humans not the computer Captain Kirk could defeat with illogical statements on Star Trek.

Take the USA for example and you can find exceptions and exclusions for even the highest national ideals like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, that doesn't make the whole notion bullshit.

What would happen right now in most of the USA if someone tried a scheme such as purchasing 1 inch of land surrounding a property and trying to charge a toll for crossing it?

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by grude

What would happen right now in most of the USA if someone tried a scheme such as purchasing 1 inch of land surrounding a property and trying to charge a toll for crossing it?

It wouldn't work. Even if a person were able to pay the tens of thousands of dollars in surveying fees to parcel surrounding properties into one inch strips, chances are (and the chances are near 100%) that the landowner has what's called an easement, or a right to pass over a section of the property. This easement runs with the land, so that if the current landowner sells the property, the new owner takes subject to the easement.

Landlocked property is extremely disfavored in law. Land is valuable and society does not want any of it not put to full use because of lack of access. So much so that landlocking is just shy of "completely not allowed" in law. I'm sure that some property experts here know of a handful of exceptions. However, when presented with a normal situation, most judges will grant an "equitable easement" when a person is completely cut off from land. If it was done maliciously, the judge certainly would grant it.

[Bob Ducca]

Masturbating in public isn't illegal, it's just frowned upon. Like counting cards in a casino.

(hopefully somebody will get this reference)

[wiredbadger]

i notice no one is utilizing a Locke perspective. it would be curious to see how this would work out. that since, if a person frequents a spot a lot, almost daily , lets say 15 hours out of a 24 hour day. therefore, experiencing the environment and interacting with it would qualify along Locke's concept of ownership.
i mean is it not what the basis of 'squatting' is all about?
Locke said that all thought stems from experience, that what we create or interact with becomes our property and in return intimately our own. it would be an extension of ones own homestead. morality aside, as if that is even existent nowadays. it would be an interesting argument to see if, aside from puritan ethics, using Locke's rationale if the person is in the wrong. morally speaking.
i find that , the property arguments that people are stemming seem to ignore Locke's precept. which he ironically created to defend against government over watch for his friends in the 17 or 18th century.
somewhat ingenious too. though ironically comical when realized in it's full form. it can still be said that any such action is not only involuntary, due to self recognition and unconscious ownership of familiarity but that technically it is only a natural expression given the conditions. i have seen people go to coffee stores in their bedclothes ,complete in slippers.mug in hand,half awake to the world.
this action,behavior is acceptable. so at the core, it would seem that Locke is correct.(by the way , dressed in nightgown is looked at oddly in the public and considered strange. but no one seems to question the above observation, in fact police are want to investigate why exactly a person is walking in their bedclothes, the prelude to many comedy sketches and antithesis to many horror and dramatic scenes which feel the need to exaggerate some aspect of the movie/show)

[yoyodyne]

Originally Posted by coffeecat

Does libertarianism mean I couldn't call the cops on someone who's being a nuisance, say after the third time I ask you to stop jerking off to my daughter? Even in our current sorry, collectivist semi-tyranny we have freedom of speech, yet I can still stop someone from standing under my window and screaming "Asshole!" at 3 AM. Perhaps you could walk through the yard of your other neighbor, the lonesome divorcee. If you masturbate for her, she might even spring for the pizza.

Your daughter must be HOT!

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

But if there's any point in talking about libertarianism, it should be to talk about the things that distinguish libertarianism from other systems.

Libertarians can say "We believe in good laws and social order and peace and justice and democracy and freedom and civil rights." And everyone else can answer "We believe in all those things too. So why be a libertarian? We can get everything you offer in our current system."

If libertarians want to convince people in their cause, they have to explain what libertarianism offers that you won't get in other non-libertarian systems.

And in general, an extreme version of property values is a primary example of something libertarianism offers that other systems do not.

I agree, but that seems to be the easiest straw man to beat. I don't think that Libertarianism is a "system" so much as a government philosophy. It goes way out of whack when we talk about privatizing roads and whatnot.

The philosophy is a far greater emphasis on the freedom of the individual. Those aren't just words, they mean repeal of drug and prostitution laws. The mindset behind seat belt laws or motorcycle helmet laws wouldn't be there.

A MASSIVE reduction in government spending. No departments of commerce, education, HUD, energy, etc. Let the free market deal with these things. Reduce the military just to basic defense.

All of these are tangible things that make libertarianism a distinct philosophy. You seem to imply that a Libertarian is demanding a revolution to make these things happen, but they could all be done under our current system.

[wiredbadger]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I agree, but that seems to be the easiest straw man to beat. I don't think that Libertarianism is a "system" so much as a government philosophy. It goes way out of whack when we talk about privatizing roads and whatnot.

The philosophy is a far greater emphasis on the freedom of the individual. Those aren't just words, they mean repeal of drug and prostitution laws. The mindset behind seat belt laws or motorcycle helmet laws wouldn't be there.

A MASSIVE reduction in government spending. No departments of commerce, education, HUD, energy, etc. Let the free market deal with these things. Reduce the military just to basic defense.

All of these are tangible things that make libertarianism a distinct philosophy. You seem to imply that a Libertarian is demanding a revolution to make these things happen, but they could all be done under our current system.

agreed. it comes down to motive or directive.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by jtgain

All of these are tangible things that make libertarianism a distinct philosophy. You seem to imply that a Libertarian is demanding a revolution to make these things happen, but they could all be done under our current system.

Not if we keep the current constitution, where even poor people with no property get to vote.