Standing naked on my property


Recommended Posts

Sorry to keep making so many new threads but you guys/gals have such amazing viewpoints and you always keep me thinking. The other night I was watching Redeye and they were debating a story about a man who was arrested for being naked in his front yard. From an Objectivist viewpoint should he be allowed to stand in his front yard naked?

Thanks,

David C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 506
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry to keep making so many new threads but you guys/gals have such amazing viewpoints and you always keep me thinking. The other night I was watching Redeye and they were debating a story about a man who was arrested for being naked in his front yard. From an Objectivist viewpoint should he be allowed to stand in his front yard naked?

Thanks,

David C.

This would again depend on the community.

This was the leaf blower and apparently was intoxicated at the time.

From a pure private property position, my answer is yes.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lewd conduct and indecent exposure in view of the neighbors would be perceived as a threat. So would display of certain slogans and symbols, prohibited as disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor. Loud music or mowing the lawn after 10pm is disturbing the peace.

Your title deed exists only in the sense that your neighbors consent to that privilege. [COGIGG, p.83]

20140815_states_0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to keep making so many new threads but you guys/gals have such amazing viewpoints and you always keep me thinking. The other night I was watching Redeye and they were debating a story about a man who was arrested for being naked in his front yard. From an Objectivist viewpoint should he be allowed to stand in his front yard naked?

Thanks,

David C.

If the man is a laughing, brilliant, unappreciated architect, then the answer is yes.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This leads me to another question, what would the objectivist position on indecent exposure be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This leads me to another question, what would the objectivist position on indecent exposure be?

First, who would be the "official" Objectivism spokes mouth?

Who Piekoff?

________________ <<<< who do you perceive it is?

There is no objectivist position that would be valid.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't find any position Peikoff took on the matter, so I turned to a lesser authority:

Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults. Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper—but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality . . .

The rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive—e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as “For Adults Only,” may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech. --Ayn Rand, “Thought Control,” The Ayn Rand Letter, III, 2, 2 [bold added]

Of course, Rand's call for protecting individual sensibilities has no basis in property rights. May I call for the banning of politicians from parades and outdoor rallies because I find the sight of them loathsome? On what basis? That I own the light waves that emanate from someone else's park or street?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't find any position Peikoff took on the matter, so I turned to a lesser authority:

Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults. Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper—but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality . . .

The rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive—e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as “For Adults Only,” may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech. --Ayn Rand, “Thought Control,” The Ayn Rand Letter, III, 2, 2 [bold added]

Of course, Rand's call for protecting individual sensibilities has no basis in property rights. May I call for the banning of politicians from parades and outdoor rallies because I find the sight of them loathsome? On what basis? That I own the light waves that emanate from someone else's park or street?

So what? Not all laws have a basis in property rights nor do they necessarily need to have a basis in them (i.e., cyberbullying minors).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't find any position Peikoff took on the matter, so I turned to a lesser authority:

Only one aspect of sex is a legitimate field for legislation: the protection of minors and of unconsenting adults. Apart from criminal actions (such as rape), this aspect includes the need to protect people from being confronted with sights they regard as loathsome. (A corollary of the freedom to see and hear, is the freedom not to look or listen.) Legal restraints on certain types of public displays, such as posters or window displays, are proper—but this is an issue of procedure, of etiquette, not of morality . . .

The rights of those who seek pornography would not be infringed by rules protecting the rights of those who find pornography offensive—e.g., sexually explicit posters may properly be forbidden in public places; warning signs, such as “For Adults Only,” may properly be required of private places which are open to the public. This protects the unconsenting, and has nothing to do with censorship, i.e., with prohibiting thought or speech. --Ayn Rand, “Thought Control,” The Ayn Rand Letter, III, 2, 2 [bold added]

Of course, Rand's call for protecting individual sensibilities has no basis in property rights. May I call for the banning of politicians from parades and outdoor rallies because I find the sight of them loathsome? On what basis? That I own the light waves that emanate from someone else's park or street?

So what? Not all laws have a basis in property rights nor do they necessarily need to have a basis in them (i.e., cyberbullying minors).

Well, obviously, existing laws that regulate drugs, guns, pornography, rent, equal employment, and a thousand other commodities are explicitly against individual property rights.

But if a law does not rest on the principle of protecting a individual's ownership of himself and what he has rightfully made his own, why should we treat that law as legitimate?

Cyber-bullying is vile and hateful. But so are a great many other examples of unpleasant, "loathsome" (to use Rand's word) speech which people in a free society will engage in from time to time. If a man claims a right to control what another man says or writes, then he is presuming ownership of that man's hands and mouth. By what means did the controller acquire that right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a man claims a right to control what another man says or writes, then he is presuming ownership of that man's hands and mouth. By what means did the controller acquire that right?

Sorry to intrude. Common law recognizes the criminal defense of "fighting words" and equitable relief for disturbing the peace.

Obscenity has evolved from antiquated notions of blasphemy, to the secular doctrine of "community standards."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been in favor of bringing back dueling to resolve any matrimonial matter if not settled within eighteen [18] months.

Joint legal custody is assumed.

The parents have to "visit" the marital home the children should not be forced to travel. They were not party to the marriage. The children stay in their neighborhood, same friends, same school.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been in favor of bringing back dueling to resolve any matrimonial matter if not settled within eighteen [18] months.

Joint legal custody is assumed.

The parents have to "visit" the marital home the children should not be forced to travel. They were not party to the marriage. The children stay in their neighborhood, same friends, same school.

A...

Just curious. Did you mean any of that? Especially about children forced to reside in their neighborhood of infancy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been in favor of bringing back dueling to resolve any matrimonial matter if not settled within eighteen [18] months.

Joint legal custody is assumed.

The parents have to "visit" the marital home the children should not be forced to travel. They were not party to the marriage. The children stay in their neighborhood, same friends, same school.

A...

Just curious. Did you mean any of that? Especially about children forced to reside in their neighborhood of infancy?

"Forced" to live in their neighborhood is a default position.

Forcing a child to travel 2hrs each way for parental access is, frankly cruel.

Obviously, if they live in a cesspool neighborhood, that becomes a questionable decision using the current incoherent "best interests standard."

In a positive way, if the neighborhood is fair to excellent, I do mean it.

As to the presumption of joint legal custody at the start of a divorce. Absolutely, we started the presumptive shared parenting legislation in NY State. Great story there...lol.

Now it is standard in most states.

And as to dueling, in a bizarre way, I think it would make negotiating a stipulation, with a serious discovery schedule, in terms of time, a hell of a lot more serious, not to mention saving a ton of money for the marital estate.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious. Did you mean any of that? Especially about children forced to reside in their neighborhood of infancy?

"Forced" to live in their neighborhood is a default position.

You know more about family law than I do. My parents did not divorce, but I sure as hell wanted out from where I was born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious. Did you mean any of that? Especially about children forced to reside in their neighborhood of infancy?

"Forced" to live in their neighborhood is a default position.

You know more about family law than I do. My parents did not divorce, but I sure as hell wanted out from where I was born.

That I completely understand.

I had great parents, lived in a blue white collar neighborhood and I was chomping at the bit to get out when I was 16, working in the city, in college, attending an NBI course and living with a nurse from the mid west who was a few years older than me during the summers.

And the minute I graduated and started teaching and grad school when I was 20 had my own apartment.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a man claims a right to control what another man says or writes, then he is presuming ownership of that man's hands and mouth. By what means did the controller acquire that right?

Sorry to intrude. Common law recognizes the criminal defense of "fighting words" and equitable relief for disturbing the peace.

Obscenity has evolved from antiquated notions of blasphemy, to the secular doctrine of "community standards."

A law's ancient pedigree does not give it automatic validity. Libel, for example, which has been said to be a breach of the peace, has been part of common law for many centuries. However, the premise of libel is absurd. A man cannot own his reputation for the simple reason that he cannot own what others think of him. Ownership of thoughts goes no further than one's own mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the premise of libel is absurd. A man cannot own his reputation for the simple reason that he cannot own what others think of him.

Libel is a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

Examples: Francisco Ferrer abducted, raped and murdered a child. Ayn Rand approves of child abduction and murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the premise of libel is absurd. A man cannot own his reputation for the simple reason that he cannot own what others think of him.

Libel is a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

Examples: Francisco Ferrer abducted, raped and murdered a child. Ayn Rand approves of child abduction and murder.

Yep.

Slander is spoken and in public [ss];

Libel is published...

Wolf, truth is the only defence correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the premise of libel is absurd. A man cannot own his reputation for the simple reason that he cannot own what others think of him.

Libel is a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

Examples: Francisco Ferrer abducted, raped and murdered a child. Ayn Rand approves of child abduction and murder.

Yep.

Slander is spoken and in public [ss];

Libel is published...

Wolf, truth is the only defence correct?

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to keep making so many new threads but you guys/gals have such amazing viewpoints and you always keep me thinking. The other night I was watching Redeye and they were debating a story about a man who was arrested for being naked in his front yard. From an Objectivist viewpoint should he be allowed to stand in his front yard naked?

Thanks,

David C.

If the man is a laughing, brilliant, unappreciated architect, then the answer is yes.

Ghs

One qualifier, George: said architect must be standing on the edge of a cliff. His own cliff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolf, truth is the only defence correct?

Truth isn't sufficient. Malice is an element. Invasion of privacy and public humiliation are actionable, except public personalities.

In other words, I'm fair game, but Joe Blow of Anywhere, KS is protected by common law.

Thanks.

Not my area at all. Makes sense though.

A,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Since this is your birthday, Adam, you have clearance for today, even at your advanced age. However, only in Jersey, not on your old bridge. Hope it's a happy one. If the Lord had wanted people to run around naked, he'd of had them born without clothes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the premise of libel is absurd. A man cannot own his reputation for the simple reason that he cannot own what others think of him.

Libel is a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

Examples: Francisco Ferrer abducted, raped and murdered a child. Ayn Rand approves of child abduction and murder.

Present law notwithstanding, X cannot morally collect compensation for damage done to something X does not own. If Y breaks X's front window, dents the fender on X's car, or knocks over X's mailbox, X is entitled to have his property restored. However, X cannot demand restoration of his reputation damaged by Y simply because X never owed it in the first place. Reputation is nothing more than the opinions others hold of X. A person held in low regard by others is not entitled to see those opinions rehabilitated into a certain shape or form, even if some opinions are based on falsehoods. Opinions, beliefs, prejudices and notions are entirely the property of other people. All X can do in a truly free society is employ persuasion in an attempt to change those thoughts.

Thus under pure laissez-faire, people would be free to rely on mere statements or statements coupled with evidence. In the long-run, which would better serve them?

Further discussion here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now