Masturbating in public isn’t illegal, it’s just frowned upon. Like counting cards in a casino.
(hopefully somebody will get this reference)
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)
Your daughter must be HOT!
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.
Not if we keep the current constitution, where even poor people with no property get to vote.