Soooooooo Lib, what you’re saying is I have an unfettered right to trot about in public naked?
To use your points: I presume my body is my property and rights accrue therefrom (points 1 and 2), only laws which prevent other men from harming my property are just (point 3), and that the government can only otherwise rightly limit my right to do with my body as I please (including walking about naked) if I consent (point 4; point 5 is unconnected here).
The neighbors will be so pleased.
But soft! What light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Dewey is the sun.
There is no such thing as “public” in Libertaria, naturally. Just in case there was any question about what you’re arguing against.
[channeling JDT]Well, at least we’ll finally be able to discover if you’re circumcised [/channeling JDT]
b.
Or moon, depending on the angle.
Dewey wrote:
No. You don’t own “the public”. It is owned by those with the most political clout.
Even the most stalwart Libertarians surely recognize the need for some public spaces (and I recognize you do not fall into that camp, BTW). After all, they all recognize that the government has a legitimate role in enforcing property and contract rights. That necessitates, at the very least, police stations and courthouses. So in Libertopia can I bare all three legs on the courthouse steps?
Ah, but this is Libertopia we’re talking about (I should have made that explicit in my post). How about it? Will there be a full moon in Libertopia tonight?
Silly me, I thought “the public” meant, oh, I don’t know, “the public.” Of course, I didn’t realize that the Supreme Court was tyrannical and the United States of American isn’t free. If you’ll excuse me, I have to go oppress some people now.
Dewey wrote:
If you own those steps, you can.
The sad thing to me is that the simple ethical decency of recognizing the sanctity of a human being’s consent is so repugnant that it must be relegated to musings about Libertopia.
Hamlet wrote:
Who grants permissions with respect to so-called public property; that is, who calls the shots? Whoever that is, that is who is claiming ownership.
How does that saying about ‘whatever not allowed is forbidden’, in england germany, italy? russia? etc go?
Really, Lib, I’ve always wondered this: who owns the courthouse in Libertopia? How to you rectify “all taxation is theft/there are no public goods” with “the government should enforce property and contract rights”?**
The sad thing to me is that you’re not answering the question. Even in Libertopia, there must be public spaces – are public nudity statutes an initiation of force against me in those spaces?
And in the real world, there are undoubtedly public spaces. Is it a serious curtailment of my innate liberties to keep my naughty bits covered whilst walking on the sidewalks?
And do hurry, Lib – it’s cold enough outside as it is, so I don’t want to wait for nightfall to show the world my birthday suit.
Did the Jews during the Third Reich have the right to not be thrown into death camps? According to you, since their government decided to take that right away from them, it didn’t exist. That’s a pretty dangerous way of thinking.
I maintain that given your humanity, there is a moral imperative
that certain rights be given to you. Such as religious freedom, freedom of speech, and a right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizues, and no cruel and unusual punishments, and due process of law. It matters not the slightest whether the government recognizes those rights you deserve, you still deserve them by virtue of the fact that you are human.
If it gets too much colder, Dewey you’ll be singing:
Blue MOOOOOOOOOONNNN
I saw you standing alone
Without a stitch of clothes
With a frozen boooooooooone.
Blalron: you are confusing the metaphysical question of whether rights exist independent of man, and the question of whether protecting certain basic rights are A Good Thing ™. We protect fundamental rights not because they exist on some theological plane, but because societies that protect such rights are better than those that do not.
To use your stark example, German Jews owe their rights to British fighter pilots, American paratroopers and Russian tankers, and not to some metaphysical gift.
Heh. On the plus side, I do have anatomically correct snow angels to look forward to.
Dewey wrote:
The arbiter.
Govern only those who consent to be governed.
There are no statutes in Libertopia. There is only one law: “Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from coercion.” If I’ve missed a question of yours, do you think you’ll be all right?
Well, that’s up to the people who seized the land to build the sidewalks, isn’t it?
Govern only those who consent to be governed? So if I don’t feel like following the laws I don’t have to? If I don’t feel like paying taxes, I don’t have to?
Libertaria is idiocy.
Lib, all that strikes me as just incredibly unworkable. Where to begin?
What if it’s a tort case? If you damage my property, we don’t have a preexisting agreement over arbitration. How do we pick an arbiter? What if we can’t agree?
For that matter, absent some kind of government, how can I be made whole from your damage? Any attempt to seize your property could be seen as coercion. Even if I do attempt to exercise self-help, how do we prevent me from taking more than the amount I was damaged by?
If it’s a contract case, what if we haven’t specified an arbiter or procedures for collection in the event of breach in the contract? Absent statutes and (presumably) controlling judicial opinions how do we determine the rights and obligations of the parties when the contract is silent or unclear?
Even if we have spelled all that stuff out, what if you breach and then just refuse to comply? Do I have to hire an armed collection squad to collect on the breach? How do we prevent me from collecting more than I am legitimately due under the contract? Presumably you would say you consented to the seizure when you entered into the contract, but who enforces that consent?
What stops me from bribing the arbiter? Just his concern for damage to his reputation? What if he figures he’ll make more in bribes than he will from lost business due to rumors of his corruption?
What about criminal acts? What if I, as a visitor to Libertopia, decide to imitate “Grand Theft Auto III”? Who arrests me? The property owner? What if it’s a little old lady? Does she contract out to a private police force? And hey, I haven’t consented to them doing anything to me – would their acts of physical force be coercion against me?
I take it the jails are private, too. Who prevents abuse of the prisoners by the guards?
**
Well, yes . . . and no. There is no question whatsoever that the U.S. Constitution is largely a practical expression of a philosophical system that views rights and powers as “naturally existing”. Take a look at amendments IX and X. IX makes it clear that additional, unenumerated rights are “retained by the people.” X makes it clear that “powers not delegated to the United States” are reserved to the states or to the people.
This philosophical perspective has real, practical consequences, both in how courts interpret and enforce laws and in how people in the U.S. live their daily lives.
In any event, what do you mean by “better?” What you probably mean is that societies that protect these rights are freer than those who do not. But that, in turn, brings us right back to the philosophical basis for the U.S. constitution. It is not objectively true that a society that recognizes and enforces more rights, is “better” than a society that recognizes and enforces fewer rights. We might all agree that a freer society is subjectively better than a more restrictive one. That, however, is, once again, an expression of our philosophical preferences.
On another topic:
**
Baloney. There is at least a second law. “It’s OK to coerce people if they try and change their minds – or if they try to do something that will coerce someone else.” You see, in Libertopia, a person’s word has to be their bond. Once they give it, they can’t be allowed to back out. If they try, it’s OK to coerce them into following through on their original agreement. In other words, “coercion” has its place in libertarian philosophy, just as it does in other systems that attempt to create an objective basis for “natural” rights.
Godwin, can you hear me?
Listen you fucking ignoramus, stating that rights are not innate does not lead one to goose-step directly down your slippery slope.
You believe rights are innate? Fine. Which ones, and where is this documented? You must have some sort of instruction manual in hand to state: “you still deserve them by virtue of the fact that you are human.” Please inform us all where the uniform set of rights belonging to all humans is written; and for bonus credit, kindly inform us who authored them.
Be a little thankful for the rights you have, because there are most certainly not universal, nor innate. They can evaporate if they aren’t protected, which is what your naïve, clumsy example actually shows.