Catcalling Fines

[Gringoboy]

If anyone thinks this legislation will work in hot-blooded, macho Argentina, then they're deluded.
Further, the article was probably written by an illiterate, politically correct intern on a Friday evening as a stocking filler to satisfy the feminists.
Clearly the tabloid hook here is to join the dots and establish a link between whistling at a passing lady and sexual violence, which is a theme of hot discussion in this country at the moment as we all know.
I asked my other half, who is an attractive Argentine lady what she thought of being whistled at and commented at with terms like 'Que morocha!' etc and she just smiled as if she thought it was a compliment.
Well good luck to Victoria Donda with her bill, but I think she's going to find it a little difficult to enforce.
http://www.wsj.com/video/catcalling-fines-proposed-by-lawmakers-in-argentina/2356BE23-B1D0-4909-AE33-F9A91D4A47C4.html

 

[sleslie23]

Yes, it might be extremely offensive and insulting. Just like the racist cakes. I approve neither. But it is still a freedom of exp<b></b>ression issue in both cases. Groping ins't. That is the difference.

Again, if you were the victim of such "freedom of exp<b></b>ression" you might have a different attitude.

 

[camberiu]

Again, if you were the victim of such "freedom of exp<b></b>ression" you might have a different attitude.

I have been many times, both in the US and Argentina. I remain a staunch defender of the freedom of exp<b></b>ression.

"Those who sacrifice freedom for security end up with neither".

 

[sleslie23]

I have been many times, both in the US and Argentina. I remain a staunch defender of the freedom of exp<b></b>ression.

"Those who sacrifice freedom for security end up with neither".

This is why no one takes Libertarians seriously.

 

[camberiu]

This is why no one takes Libertarians seriously.

That is fine. I am not looking for approval. I am looking for freedom. Not only mine, but for everyone. even for those who might despise me due to my color, ethnicity or nationality.

I think it is hard for someone who never lived under tyranny to understand and appreciate how precious and fragile freedom is. So they compromise on it, for the sake of convenience and "social harmony".

 

[sleslie23]

That is fine. I am not looking for approval. I am looking for freedom. Not only mine, but for everyone. even for those who might despise me due to my color, ethnicity or nationality.

I think it is hard for someone who never lived under tyranny to understand and appreciate how precious and fragile freedom is. So they compromise on it, for the sake of convenience and "social harmony".

I understand your (the libertarian) point of view. Personally, I just think it's naive and lacks an understanding of how societies function in the real world.

Many "libertarians" also seem to see the world in binary terms. In other words, any laws or restrictions on personal behavior is living under tyranny. The reality is ALL societies have some type of limits (either explicit or implicit) on what one can and can't do to be a participant in that society.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

This is why no one takes Libertarians seriously.

That's part of it, at least. Here's another reason: https://twitter.com/tomtomorrow/status/613187965737660416

 

[camberiu]

The reality is ALL societies have some type of limits (either explicit or implicit) on what one can and can't do to be a participant in that society.

Yes, all societies have limits. The problem is that many critics of libertarianism (yourself included) cannot distinguish between society and state. Those are two very different things. Societies can impose limits and exclude you from it if you don't abide to those limits. A family is a society and and if you don;t behave within the accepted limits of that society, you run the risk of ostracism or exclusion. You are also free to leave that society and seek another one. Participation in a society is entirely consensual.

The state will impose limits and punish you with violence if you fail to fall within those limits. These is nothing consensual about being under the auspice of the state. You are born under a social contract (that you never signed) and the punishment for falling to conform to the state rules are to be subjected to violence, imprisonment and ultimately death. In the US, if you renounced the state, there is an automatic MINIMUM 40% tax on your net assets (failure to comply results in imprisonment) and you have to leave the geographical location that the state claims to control. They are now talking about increasing that tax even further.

 

[ARbound]

Last year I was walking with a Dutch girl I worked with on Av. Carlos Pellegrini
while there were the city construction workers fixing the drains/replacing broken
sidewalk. One of the workers made a pretty lewd remark to her and she was
pretty uncomfortable. I stopped walking, yelled back at him the equivalent of
"she didn't ask your opinion" plus some swears, and he didn't respond.

That is how I deal with catcalling, LatAm or USA/Canada. I don't think there
needs to be a law against it. Like I said in the other thread, say what you want,
I don't care, but your words do have consequences, and perhaps one of them
might be getting punched in the face by the husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend/friend
of the woman you catcall.

Again, I'm not saying we should beat people up who do it, but if that happens to you
because you were being a pig/ass I'm not going to by sympathetic to you.

 

[sleslie23]

Yes, all societies have limits. The problem is that many critics of libertarianism (yourself included) cannot distinguish between society and state. Those are two very different things. Societies can impose limits and exclude you from it if you don't abide to those limits. A family is a society and and if you don;t behave within the accepted limits of that society, you run the risk of ostracism or exclusion. You are also free to leave that society and seek another one. Participation in a society is entirely consensual.

The state will impose limits and punish you with violence if you fail to fall within those limits. These is nothing consensual about being under the auspice of the state. You are born under a social contract (that you never signed) and the punishment for falling to conform to the state rules are to be subjected to violence, imprisonment and ultimately death. In the US, if you renounced the state, there is an automatic 40% tax on your net assets (failure to comply results in imprisonment) and you have to leave the geographical location that the state claims to control. They are now talking about increasing that tax even further.

It's not that I can't distinguish between the state and society. It's just that there aren't such black and white distinctions between the two. That said, I agree (I think we agree) that cat calling is more of a social issue than a government issue.

You're preaching to the choir about the ever increasing geographic scope of US taxes. It's why I'm not living in Uruguay today.