Should it be legal for women to be topless in public?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Gee I thought you were all libertarian... Geuss I find otherwise.

[Beet]

Gee I thought you were all libertarian... Geuss I find otherwise.

Here's the funny thing about these types--

Their rhetoric is libertarian.
Their positions are conservative.
When the political party they support controls government, its policies are authoritarian and corporatist.

Reality and mirage comes full circle. It's actually quite a graceful arc.

[A18]

You can not derive from libertarianism a right to disturb other people.

I support the GOP because I believe its policies are more pro-liberty than the alternative, not because I agree with everything it does.

[Gustaf]

I voted yes simply beacuse I find the idea of a topless woman getting arrested so ridiculous. I guess it could be bad taste, but a lot of the young men here are probably convinenetly over-looking the fact that even if it WAS legal, not many women, especially not hot ones, would do it. It would mostly be middle-aged fat German nudists on vacations and that sort of thing. So I don't think many people would be disturbed.

All laws has to balance the potential damage to victims with potential damage to perpetrators, innocenntly accused, and so on. In this case I think the balance is pretty heavy on one side. If someone gets shocked by seeing someone naked that doesn't really out-weigh all the ways this could be abused.

[A18]

I voted yes simply beacuse I find the idea of a topless woman getting arrested so ridiculous.

I find the idea of legalized public nudity ridiculous.

What potential 'abuse' are you talking about?

[Beet]

You can not derive from libertarianism a right to disturb other people.

Well how do you define "disturb"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well for one, here you seem to be taking a position that is opposed to liberty. For the other, the arrangement of (divided) government when Clinton was in office arguably suited the side of liberty far more than the recent arrangement.

[Gustaf]

I voted yes simply beacuse I find the idea of a topless woman getting arrested so ridiculous.

I find the idea of legalized public nudity ridiculous.

What potential 'abuse' are you talking about?

I don't know, stealing someone's clothes maybe? Or let's say there is a break-in and you're in the shower and you chase someone nude (not likely to happen, I know...). Should that be a criminal offence? It just seems, well...silly.

[A18]

Well, that's why you word the statute properly.

Also, why would the fact that only ugly people are likely to do this make the situation LESS disturbing?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm sure there are people who are huge prudes that get shocked seeing girls at the beach in thongs and string tops, should we ban those too? I remember once seeing one of my favorite strippers at the club down here leave early so she was dressed in her street clothes and noticed she actually wasn't wearing much more on her top than she was while working, no doubt that would shock some prude, so should we prohibit girls from wearing shirts that are 2 sizes too small?

[Beet]

a lot of the young men here are probably convinenetly over-looking the fact that even if it WAS legal, not many women, especially not hot ones, would do it.

Thanks for your insight, Gustaf. This is what I meant when I asked whether anyone "realized this was irrelevant". Legal status means nothing when compared to social stigma.

For example, the speed limit officially being 35, you will see people driving on average at 45 because that's the social custom.

The Fourteenth amendment had prohibited deprivation of rights based on race, yet Jim Crow flourished for generations because the law didn't fit the social reality.

Birth control was illegal in Connecticut before Griswold, and cohabitation illegal in North Carolina more recently; yet their impact on reality was nil because of social custom.

Laws mean NOTHING if they don't conform to social custom, even when the law directly contradicts social custom. Social custom, culture, habit and tradition, is a far more powerful force than law. That's a profound result because politics, the study of the legitimate use of force, is supposed to be the branch of study that deals with power. And yet when we speak of politics we virtually invariably speak of laws and not social customs! So how much power do legislators really have? What's real politics? What's real power? I think it's worth considering.

Back to topic, in this case, legalizing being topless in public fails to create even that contradiction. It would change nothing-- absolutely nothing. For all we know it could already be legal in certain places (outside nude beaches).

[A18]

So only ugly people will go nude. Yeah, that makes it way better.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Hence my licensing idea.

[A18]

I don't know. There's always someone willing to do anything.

[CheeseWhiz]

Gee I thought you were all libertarian... Geuss I find otherwise.

Here's the funny thing about these types--

Their rhetoric is libertarian.
Their positions are conservative.
When the political party they support controls government, its policies are authoritarian and corporatist.

Reality and mirage comes full circle. It's actually quite a graceful arc.

I guess you don't understand that libertarians don't have to be anarchist?  Just because you suscribe to an ideology doesn't mean you have to be an extremist.  I guess I can safely assume that because you have a red avatar you should be close to opebo's ideology, else you are not a real liberal, right?

[nclib]

You can not derive from libertarianism a right to disturb other people.

There's a difference between being disturbed and being offended. One does not have the right to not be offended.

[Everett]

One does not have the right to not be offended.

No offence, but that does sound somewhat... funny coming from you.

[A18]

You can not derive from libertarianism a right to disturb other people.

There's a difference between being disturbed and being offended. One does not have the right to not be offended.

Uh, on your property, you have the right not to be offended, to the extent practicable.

[nclib]

One does not have the right to not be offended.

No offence, but that does sound somewhat... funny coming from you.

Please explain. For example, I have always been a firm believer in free speech, regardless of whether it is offensive.

Uh, on your property, you have the right not to be offended, to the extent practicable.

I was talking about out in public.

[Beet]

Gee I thought you were all libertarian... Geuss I find otherwise.

Here's the funny thing about these types--

Their rhetoric is libertarian.
Their positions are conservative.
When the political party they support controls government, its policies are authoritarian and corporatist.

Reality and mirage comes full circle. It's actually quite a graceful arc.

I guess you don't understand that libertarians don't have to be anarchist?  Just because you suscribe to an ideology doesn't mean you have to be an extremist.  I guess I can safely assume that because you have a red avatar you should be close to opebo's ideology, else you are not a real liberal, right?

I never said libertarianism was anarchism, nor that it had to be extremist, or uphold its own principles in an absolute, priori sense. However, a lot of people who are strong conservatives for some reason claim to be libertarians, or talk as if they are libertarians. Interestingly, the GOP on many issues is increasingly neither.

[A18]

I claim to be a libertarian conservative, in that I support some causes that would not traditionally be identified with 'conservatism,' however defined (legalization of drugs and prostitution, abolishing the FCC, and so forth).

I do not, however, believe one should be able to blast music all the time, while other people are trying to do other things, or let dead animals rot on his front yard, while other people have to smell it. There are a lot of gray areas, because what you do on your property is going to affect how others enjoy theirs.

I think the GOP has become more, not less, pro-liberty in the last 25 years.

[Everett]

One does not have the right to not be offended.

No offence, but that does sound somewhat... funny coming from you.

Please explain. For example, I have always been a firm believer in free speech, regardless of whether it is offensive.

Considering that one of the groups whose pictures you proudly display in your signature is blatantly against certain types of 'free speech', I find it somewhat amusing that you claim to believe in 'free speech'. Obviously I don't completely and unwaveringly support it either, but the fact that NOW constantly throws fits over anything it considers 'anti-woman' and 'offensive' doesn't convince me that it believes in 'free speech'.

[Beet]

I claim to be a libertarian conservative, in that I support some causes that would not traditionally be identified with 'conservatism,' however defined (legalization of drugs and prostitution, abolishing the FCC, and so forth).

I do not, however, believe one should be able to blast music all the time, while other people are trying to do other things, or let dead animals rot on his front yard, while other people have to smell it. There are a lot of gray areas, because what you do on your property is going to affect how others enjoy theirs.

Perhaps, yet part of being able to enjoy one's property is being able to use it as one sees fit, and the neighbor who forbids his neighbor from blasting loud music is being no less coercive upon the stereo-owner's property than the stereo-owner is on the book-reader.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No doubt the GOP presidential arm was highly committed to small government, at least in the context of their times, under the leaderships of Harding, Coolidge, comparatively Hoover, Alf Landon, at the time of the 80th Congress, under Barry Goldwater, and under Ronald Reagan. At other times, such as under Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, I would argue the presidential arm has strayed away from that commitment, and that is where the party is now. The Congressional arm has also strayed away from commitment toward small government in the past ten years, especially in the past three or four years; as have many governors. That leaves pretty much nothing on the economic front. The most consistent GOP positions seem to be foreign policy neoconservatism and culture-war conservatism, including expansion of government rights on civil liberties.

[A18]

Considering that one of the groups whose pictures you proudly display in your signature is blatantly against certain types of 'free speech', I find it somewhat amusing that you claim to believe in 'free speech'. Obviously I don't completely and unwaveringly support it either, but the fact that NOW constantly throws fits over anything it considers 'anti-woman' and 'offensive' doesn't convince me that it believes in 'free speech'.

By 'free speech,' people usually mean that the government shouldn't be regulating free expression. Simply attacking someone for something he said would not be anti- 'free speech' under that definition, and I would think under any definition, would itself be speech.

[nclib]

Considering that one of the groups whose pictures you proudly display in your signature is blatantly against certain types of 'free speech', I find it somewhat amusing that you claim to believe in 'free speech'. Obviously I don't completely and unwaveringly support it either, but the fact that NOW constantly throws fits over anything it considers 'anti-woman' and 'offensive' doesn't convince me that it believes in 'free speech'.

Everett, can you give a specific example of a case where NOW was against free speech, because, as Philip said, attacking someone for their free speech is not "anti-free speech". Although there may be individuals in NOW who believe that anti-woman speech should be illegal, they do not represent the majority of the organization.

[NOW] seems to believe that women have the right to take offence to everything, or that they have some magical right not to be offended.

Anyone can take offense to anything, but that doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal.

[Chiahead]

Option 3 is fine by me, but i think the policy should be no shoes, no shirt, no service in most places for everybody