Catcalling Fines

[camberiu]

The point is, it is naive to assume that a person living out his freedoms might not have an effect on any other person's freedom and you need to have limitations with clear boundaries, which basically means reducing the extend of freedom. How much? This is a question society needs to decide.

And the solution is obviously to rely on the highly fallible state to a priory limit people's freedom in name of the common good. This approach has worked extremely well so far.

 

[camberiu]

Sounds a lot like you are trying to justify sexual violence under a misguided understanding of what freedom of exp<b></b>ression constitutes.

I can play this game too.

Sounds like you are trying to justify censorship and suppression of free speech under the misguided understanding of what "protecting the children" constitutes.

 

[nkotb]

Do you trust the cops to enforce such a law fairly? How easy would it be to use it against the "undesirable elements" of the day? Immigrants, homeless, fill in the blanks.

 

[thorsten]

And the solution is obviously to rely on the highly fallible state to a priory limit people's freedom in name of the common good. This approach has worked extremely well so far.

I herewith respect your freedom to use whataboutery to avoid facing flaws in your favored ideology.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

And the solution is obviously to rely on the highly fallible state to a priory limit people's freedom in name of the common good. This approach has worked extremely well so far.

Obviously, we should leave it to the infallible libertarians!

 

[sleslie23]

I herewith respect your freedom to use whataboutery to avoid facing flaws in your favored ideology.

Eso!

 

[ElQueso]

The problem you guys have (most of you anyway) is that you haven't actually studied libertarianism (I don't mean having read some propagandist's writing that tells you why libertarianism isn't possible in any shape or form, or fleeting comments in a forum) and therefore consider it flawed because you can't imagine how a society would possibly function without a state to enforce laws. And there is one prime law that libertarians share - NAP.

When Camberiu was talking about a court, I think he wasn't being clear, at least as related to libertarian concepts. It's almost impossible to have a quick-fire conversation on a forum, answering a bunch of people who are throwing hypothetical situations who are already expecting to receive the answer they "know" is "wrong" with not enough understanding of the actual concept, and to explain the complexity behind some of the concepts of libertarianism in these brief exchanges is very difficult.

In fact, those who supported royalty couldn't imagine commoners running their own country and having anything less than chaos and murder in the streets as a result, but the reality is quite a bit different. Better than monarchies, but still overly-flawed, of course.

I don't think Camberiu was talking about a state-run court, but rather private courts. In fact, as I posited yesterday in another thread, the concept of self-regulation without a state was the reality of life in the American "wild west" and most of the stories about the wildness was created by people much like Ajo who call "exercising your Second Amendment right" the same as mass murder.

Private courts already exist, and Camberiu mentioned mediation. Mediation is similar to the private court concept of libertarians, with more power. I'm not even going to begin to describe how the system would work because it's not totally simple and no one would read it anyway, but continue to argue that it is impossible to have any kind of order in a libertarian society.

To believe that any thinking person would embrace something that provided no recourse whatsoever for justice is a bit ingenuous at the least, and insulting to the person who has carefully considered his position. Imbecilic attacks like Ajo is wont to use is exactly the kind of thing that people should avoid in a true discussion.

Try actually reading a little about the core concepts of libertarianism and the basis of it (not passing comments in a forum - sound bytes don't mean anything), and how a libertarian society might protect its individual members from the excesses of others. If you are reading something that says libertarians are selfish and don't want to have anything to do with anyone else and just want freedom to screw over anyone else, you are 100% absolutely reading the wrong material, if you hope to get the point of view of libertarians. Read Murray Rothbard as a start, because most of modern-day libertarianism springs from his concepts. More modern day writers about libertarianism have already read the basics and discussions don't make a whole lot of sense without the proper grounding.

If one has already done this and still argues that libertarians have not thought of such things as protecting everyone's personal liberty, I have no interest in discussing anything with that person. I don't mean to be rude, but that person has missed the lesson, if so. If one has researched said subject and merely doesn't believe it's possible, that libertarians are being naive and searching for the impossible, I can talk all day long with that person and probably even share some of his or her concerns.

I would be more than willing to expound on systems that have been used in the world previously, and systems that can be used in a libertarian society, but not as fleeting comments in a forum because it doesn't do anyone any good. It's one of the reasons my posts are so long and no one reads them

 

[ElQueso]

As to catcalls being regulated by law - ridiculous.

I despise the idiocy of men who do that. It's disgusting. But then I also think that sending little kids into restaurants or up to cars in traffic to beg for money while mom, dad or older brother or sister sit and watch is disgusting. I certainly don't see that being made illegal, unless there's a law here I don't know about. And I wouldn't have it made illegal either, had I the choice.

The first woman's video, I loved! She was, indeed, spot on. We all get accosted on a daily basis by idiots. I wish people would stop being a bunch of wimps and deal with life. We can't make everything illegal. And imagine in a place where people enforce their laws - how much more money is it going to cost us to stop catcalling? And pretty soon people who have a fear of clowns are going to make it illegal for them to sow their faces in public!

For crying out loud!

 

[ajoknoblauch]

I would be more than willing to expound on systems that have been used in the world previously, and systems that can be used in a libertarian society, but not as fleeting comments in a forum because it doesn't do anyone any good. It's one of the reasons my posts are so long and no one reads them

I have a certain respect for your naivete, but the reason nobody reads long libertarian posts is because they are so incoherent. The most succinct summary of libertarianism's origins, though, can be found at https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/609763425221152768

About contemporary libertarian politicians, all you need to know is http://tinyurl.com/kyl6s8s

 

[camberiu]

I would be more than willing to expound on systems that have been used in the world previously, and systems that can be used in a libertarian society, but not as fleeting comments in a forum because it doesn't do anyone any good. It's one of the reasons my posts are so long and no one reads them

Here is the interesting thing Elqueso. In the 20th century alone, the state sent over 250 million people to their deaths. The social-democrat "Progressive" Swedish government had a eugenics program of force sterilization for racial purity purposes from the 1930s until 2012. Progressive FDR, the father of the modern American progressive movement sent thousands of Americans of Japanese descent into internment camps during World War II, for the crime of being of Japanese descent. In Australia, aborigines were treated like animals by the government until the mid 20th century, having even their children stolen from them.

Today in the US, the government can confiscate your property arbitrarily, and you may never get it back.

The French Army today is accused of systematically sexually abusing children in Africa.

But we are the crazy or the naive ones for raising the possibility that life might be better without the state. The burden of proof is on us to show that voluntarism might be better instead of them on how it could be possibly worse than what we have today.

Talk about Stockholm syndrome.