24-hour visitation on college dorms

[nclib]

Of course, I vote yes. You can't legislate morality (someone even admitted that morality was part fo the reason for this policy).

What does this have to do with legislation?

Nothing. Why do liberals see no difference between a property owner setting rules and a coercive entity imposing them?

I never said the policy was unconstitutional, just that I disagreed with it.

[A18]

Of course, I vote yes. You can't legislate morality (someone even admitted that morality was part fo the reason for this policy).

What does this have to do with legislation?

Nothing. Why do liberals see no difference between a property owner setting rules and a coercive entity imposing them?

I never said the policy was unconstitutional, just that I disagreed with it.

Uh, what? You said "you can't legislate morality" as an argument against the policy, which certainly does not amount to legislation.

[Nym90]

Of course, I vote yes. You can't legislate morality (someone even admitted that morality was part fo the reason for this policy).

What does this have to do with legislation?

Nothing. Why do liberals see no difference between a property owner setting rules and a coercive entity imposing them?

I would argue there is no difference in reality because the effect on the person is the same. That's not to say the rules might well be right in some or even most circumstances, but the effect on the person is the same, and I think politics should look at the reality of how something affects people rather than just the legal aspects of it.

[A18]

Of course, I vote yes. You can't legislate morality (someone even admitted that morality was part fo the reason for this policy).

What does this have to do with legislation?

Nothing. Why do liberals see no difference between a property owner setting rules and a coercive entity imposing them?

I would argue there is no difference in reality because the effect on the person is the same. That's not to say the rules might well be right in some or even most circumstances, but the effect on the person is the same, and I think politics should look at the reality of how something affects people rather than just the legal aspects of it.

Uh, the critical difference is that one is coercive and the other is not. Sure, raping a woman and having sex may be essentially the same act, but they are not moral equivalents.

No one here is being deprived of the full use of his person or property.

[Beet]

Uh, the critical difference is that one is coercive and the other is not. Sure, raping a woman and having sex may be essentially the same act, but they are not moral equivalents.

No one here is being deprived of the full use of his person or property.

It depends on your precise definition of coercion.

Under even the most minimal definition, coercion cannot be avoided in any organized political system. Agree? And is it not stupid to be opposed on principle to something which cannot (and should not) be avoided, unless one were to withdraw from the political system altogether and be a passive advocate of anarchy? That is part of the issue here, and the other part of the issue is that whatever moral criteria one uses in the desire to maximize liberty should also inform us that there are other things valuable in life besides liberty.

Now, I oppose coercion in many cases because the reasons given for the coercion do not outweigh the benefits of maintaining liberty in the question presented.

For example, in 24-hour visitation dorms, having lived in them for 4 years, does not tell me that the reasons MODU gave as the benefits of restriction would outweigh the costs of the restriction, in general. But I would be open to changing my mind in speciific cases.

[A18]

What does your post have to do with mine?

I didn't say, for the record, the initiation of force was never justifiable, although I'd certainly take anarcho-capitalism over what we have now. I'm not sure why one would have to be a 'passive' advocate of anarchy, either. Surely one could still vote for less-than-ideal candidates to bring the nation closer to the ideal state.

[Beet]

What does your post have to do with mine?

Well, the thrust in this thread so far has revolved around the question of coercion. I'm just trying to say that personally, the issue is not (edit: not only) whether rules are imposed or not, but the reason for imposing them, and that perhaps others should agree with me

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is true.

[Nym90]

My main point was that government is most certainly not the only thing can be coercive. To the person being coerced, it matters not whether the coercion is coming from government or from some other source.

Not that all forms of coercion should be treated equally, mind you, just that the idea that all oppression in life comes from government and government only is a bit off the mark in terms of reality.

[A18]

Well, the thrust in this thread so far has revolved around the question of coercion. I'm just trying to say that personally, the issue is not (edit: not only) whether rules are imposed or not, but the reason for imposing them, and that perhaps others should agree with me

Actually, the thrust of the thread so far has revolved around the merits of the rule. I tend to agree it's a stupid one.

I was simply making a separate point, incited by nclib's sensible but misguided 'you can't legislate morality' comment. A property owner is, in my view, entitled to set moral rules to a greater extent than the government. That to me is common sense, and yet so few liberals seem to acknowledge the distinction.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't disagree, but it is not 'coercive' in the sense I use the word for a property owner to do what he pleases with his property. It is 'coercive' to do as one pleases with someone else's property.

[Nym90]

I should also point out that I agree that property owners should be given more leeway than the government overall in setting rules.

[MasterJedi]

Yes, my college already has this so I'm fine.

[Beet]

Well, the thrust in this thread so far has revolved around the question of coercion. I'm just trying to say that personally, the issue is not (edit: not only) whether rules are imposed or not, but the reason for imposing them, and that perhaps others should agree with me

Actually, the thrust of the thread so far has revolved around the merits of the rule. I tend to agree it's a stupid one.

I was simply making a separate point, incited by nclib's sensible but misguided 'you can't legislate morality' comment. A property owner is, in my view, entitled to set moral rules to a greater extent than the government. That to me is common sense, and yet so few liberals seem to acknowledge the distinction.

Well, I think what nclib meant was that rules are not very good at forcing people into moral integrity, which is generally what's meant by the phrase. That comment applies whether the rule is by the university or a government. Although the word "legislate" obviously does not fit perfectly here, I doubt that he meant to say that private entities and governments ought to be viewed equivalently in terms of their rights and entitlements.

[nclib]

Well, the thrust in this thread so far has revolved around the question of coercion. I'm just trying to say that personally, the issue is not (edit: not only) whether rules are imposed or not, but the reason for imposing them, and that perhaps others should agree with me

Actually, the thrust of the thread so far has revolved around the merits of the rule. I tend to agree it's a stupid one.

I was simply making a separate point, incited by nclib's sensible but misguided 'you can't legislate morality' comment. A property owner is, in my view, entitled to set moral rules to a greater extent than the government. That to me is common sense, and yet so few liberals seem to acknowledge the distinction.

Well, I think what nclib meant was that rules are not very good at forcing people into moral integrity, which is generally what's meant by the phrase. That comment applies whether the rule is by the university or a government. Although the word "legislate" obviously does not fit perfectly here

I agree that "legislate" wasn't the best choice of words, and you explained pretty well what I meant by that phrase.

Anyway, the stupidity of the policy is that though it might intend to keep students from having sex, one could still have sex during the day, or be studying with an opposite-sex friend at night.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Of course, I vote yes.

Yes, I'd vote to allow this. Why is it anyone's damn business what people do in private?

[NewFederalist]

Of course, I vote yes.

Yes, I'd vote to allow this. Why is it anyone's damn business what people do in private?

Especially if they are NOT forced to wear school uniforms!

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Then we should allow human sacrifice & cannibalism,

America has already legalized human sacrifice.

Anytime they allow a corporation to pollute our waterways as long as the projected number of cancer deaths increases by only a certain amount, that's a human sacrifice. When they say the pollution will cause, say, two extra cancer deaths in area with 100,000 people, that is human sacrifice.

They are sacrificing human lives on the altar of the religion of capitalism.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Why do liberals see no difference between a property owner setting rules and a coercive entity imposing them?

Because there really is very little difference.

Property owners can't just do what they want if it would harm the public. That's why there's fair housing laws and other laws governing landlords.

[A18]

The critical difference, that should be painfully obvious, is that one is an aggressive act and the other is not.

The essence of property is that one may do with it as one pleases. No other person is entitled to the property.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The essence of property is that one may do with it as one pleases.

Um, nope. You can't, if it would hurt someone else.

If I own a baseball bat, it is my property. But does that allow me to go out and bash people's heads in with it? I should think not.

[A18]

You're a total moron. That does damage to another person's property, namely his body.