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.
There is no harm done to me if such behavior occurs. Now an owner of private property could object just as in not allowing a barefoot or shirtless person on their property.
This is my test to determine the false liberty people from the real.
Are you preparing a defense?
Expect several posts in which people tell you you don’t understand what Libertarianism really is. They will all explain to you what Libertarianism really is.
None of these explanations will agree.
A hard-core libertarian would say that there should be no public property so the question is nonsensical.
The free-hand of The Market will cover your junk. Because The Market is magic.
Although, some of the less rational Libertarians might assume that there is no public land. The sidewalks are owned by Brand X (Only walk Brand X sidewalks! The sidewalks with the loosest dress-codes and behavior standards.)
Now I suppose you could rub your soapy dick against your windows, and no one could stop you.
It seems like you’ve already set your standard. Public Maturbator = Libertarian. Private-Only Mastrubator = Authoritarian Moralist. Perhaps you should change your question to “where can a guy beat-off outside?”
I am sort of a Libertarian and I agree entirely that it should be legal to masturbate in public. I don’t understand why you think this a difficult or “trick” question.
In fact I would say any form of (classical) liberal should be fine with public masturbation.
It worked for Diogenes the Cynic!
This is my understanding as well. There is no public property, and the land owner can dictate the rules for his own property.
Tug THIS with the free hand of the market, wouldja?
Okay, I’m sitting in my fortress of solitude and I’m getting a little hungry. I decide to drive to the local pizza place and buy a slice (paying gold naturally). Your land sits between my residence and the pizza place so I walk up to your border and give you a shout. You come over and meet me and we negotiate a fair price for me to travel across your property (and back - I’m not falling for that trick of you letting me leave my property cheaply and then raising the price for me to cross back to my home.)
So as I’m walking across your land, I happen to see your teenage daughter and her friends sunning themselves in your backyard. Having long since abandoned political correctness as the evil that it is, I whip it out and start masturbating.
You run up and are quite angry (although your daughter and her friends seem to be into it). You tell me I have to stop and I can’t do that on your property. But I point out that we’ve already reached a mutual agreement that I can be on your land and you didn’t include anything in it that said I couldn’t stop and have a masturbation break during my walk.
Or if you don’t like this scenario, here’s another. We’ve made our agreement and I’m walking across your property. But when I get halfway across, you point a gun at me and tell me you want a hundred dollars more from me. I protest that we had an agreement. You inform me that our agreement was only for me to walk across your property; we made no agreement for me to breathe your air. Being as I chose to walk across your property without holding my breath, I’m now obligated to reach a new agreement with you for the additional services I took without prior agreement.
I’m sure you see my point. Is there some objective standard of what’s reasonable or does every possibility have to be negotiated out on a case-by-case basis? Do we really have to spend hours negotiating over the terms of an agreement every time I want to go out for pizza?
I do. Libertariansim is a clusterfuck in the details.
Even in our democracy/republic, I think there should be much more latitude in nudity laws. At very least, a section of most public beaches should be zoned to permit nudity.
Masturbation? An argument might be made that it will disturb young people who are not sufficiently mature to cope with the concepts (and sight) of overt sexuality. It’s all part of the tradition of our culture. But I dunno…
We don’t poop in public places, but there isn’t any real argument that it is harmful. We watch dogs and horses poop in public, and that doesn’t damage our minds, even sensitive little children.
A set of laws ought to be based on objective measures of harm done. No harm? Why bother with the law. But defending tradition is very important to many people – and they vote.
Is there a “right answer?” Can there be?
That a 72YO still has the wherewithall to “enjoy” himself is encouraging to me since I’m just a few years younger.
IMO, there are certain acts legal in private that should not be done in public, they would include anything that exposes one’s private parts (sexual activity, pooping and peeing). And would include acts that are unhealthful in public, but allowed in private - e.g. spitting, smoking.
Fine, you are no Libertarian then. I have no issue with your stance.
I assume you mean not harmful in an emotional sense, because human crap is pretty harmful in just about every other measurable way. We may let dogs crap in public, but we better not leave it there or else risk a fine in any civilized town.
Actually, what will happen is someone will come in and shit all over Libertarians before anyone has a chance to answer.
But I agree that a Libertarian would say masturbation in public = OK, if there is any public property to begin with. In Libertaria, there probably wouldn’t be much.
Did the OP have another question? Or was this one of those “need answer fast” type of threads?
No, I generally hold back and let the argument “ripen”. Asking a good question is satisfaction enough.
No, just like you don’t have to negotiate a new contract with Verizon every time you make a phone call. You could certainly sign an agreement with your neighbor ahead of time that addresses all these points to your mutual satisfaction. And you would be stupid to buy land that is only accessible by crossing your neighbor’s land without having such an agreement in place first, without expiration.
The only difference between such a contract in Libertaria, and an Easement in the US today, is that your contract in Libertaria would likely be much lengthier, because it would explicitly spell out many of the restrictions that are currently part of the broader US law today (such as prohibiting “indecent exposure”, etc.)
Personally, my view re: the OP’s original question would be simple. In Libertaria, everything is private property - including the government and all government holdings, in the sense that the government is simply a corporation that is owned by all the citizens equally and has some special legal status. If the owners of Govcorp (that is, the citizens of Libertaria) decide they want to ban public masturbation on Govcorp property, they could do that. But such a ban would have no effect on property not owned by Govcorp (e.g. all conventional “private” property).
A lot of liber-anarch fictional utopias feature dueling as a way of deciding irreconcilable differences between individuals. If someone offends you so much that you absolutely cannot and will not accept it, then you stake your own life as the potential price of doing something about it. If you’re the one challenged to a duel, then you either agree to it, or be willing to accept the judgment of a neutral arbitrator. The thing about this system is that both people who are arrogant jerkasses and people who are intolerant control freaks tend to not have very long lifespans.
Well, yeah, that! Germs, flies, stench…
Can we say that a libertarian society has the right to protect itself against stench? Does my really stinky outhouse, or my pig farm, constitute an offense against my neighbor? It does no actual measurable objective harm…but it is grievously unpleasant…
(And we have to be careful with “it reduces your property values” arguments, because that leads to endless litigation, or else to regulations against private activity…just what Libertaria wants least!)
This is troubling, because not everyone is able to wield a sword or even a pistol. It leads to the master of the weapon having free rein to hassle anyone around him, until the day comes when someone even better shows up. It violates the principle of “equal justice.” (Which I think is desired in a Libertarian society.)
Of course, you can just allow hired gunslingers…but that leads to a different set of problems…