Standing naked on my property

[Brant Gaede]

Perfection in a human being is a chimera. That is incompatible with cognitive, free-willed human nature and moral mistakes and moral evil. That's why we get governance and why that governance, considering where humanity is collectively, in the aggregate, always turns into statism. Government reflects the governed. That some governed are virtuous and some evil and how that's reflected in their government means someone or some groups or groups will be dominated for either good or evil. Government will always reflect the good-evil ratio of its citizens. A lot of that is from how good they are with the critical thinking that's supposed to be going on inside a human skull, but is not taught or learnt in John Deweyied schools.

There are two possible virtues of statism which could some some importance. The first is knowing how government traduces rights means it's an object lesson for one and all in what freedom is and what threatens it. The second is in the perfect Utopian no government or very small government libertarian-Objectivist political world everything is jake with billions of people doing their happy and productive things until some unexpected exogenous something comes along like an alien invasion from outer space or destroy the world asteroid and everything goes "SPLAT!" But in a world of countries armed to the teeth, many fighting each other, third party interference in these domestic disputes means all that firepower gets redirected against the would be splatterer and we have "War of the Worlds" (and we just might win)!

(This is why the police hate domestic violence calls: the fighters stop fighting and turn on the cops.)

--Brant

don't fuck with us!

(Is this a rant?)

[Francisco Ferrer]

Objectivists don't want to force anyone to do anything. They want to live in peace. Fortunately, there is a set of ethical guidelines that is consistent with human nature that would allow everyone to live in harmony if everyone would follow them. In fact, most people outside of government follow them most of the time.

Correct. Communists would be protected from the initiation force like everyone else. Under laissez-faire law, communists would enjoy full ownership of their bodies and all other rightfully acquired property. Nothing would prohibit them from pooling what they own to provide for themselves, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"--just as long as this arrangement applies only to those who voluntarily enlist in it. Thus no force.

Force qua government is a primary--that is, without it no government. You bifurcate that force into initiated and non-initiated. The former you cannot be rid of. It's just an Objectivist dream. The latter is its primary function. I suppose there's a scientist somewhere who also dreams: of obtaining absolute zero.

--Brant

We can never be rid of disease either. But we don't give up hygiene, vaccines, and medical check-ups. We don't start off by declaring, it's okay for some people to die because it's not a perfect world.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Under laissez-faire law...

Could you pick a different adjective, please?

I am unable to justify ansoc [anarcho-socialist] property or any other form of a commons or commonwealth. The legal issues seem plain. If property is held in common, it is impossible to litigate. Every current and future member of the socialist collective would be party to a lawsuit and they might all be simultaneously petitioners and respondents, unless an individual member seeks to enjoin or sue everyone else. Legal standing to sue the state (collective) is narrowly defined in most jurisdictions. The alleged injury must be personal. If you are similarly situated to other citizens and required to obey laws and pay tax or perform service according to administrative rules that are more or less uniformly applicable to all, then you have no individual standing to sue, comrade.

[Laissez Faire Law, p.199]

[Brant Gaede]

Force qua government is a primary--that is, without it no government. You bifurcate that force into initiated and non-initiated. The former you cannot be rid of. It's just an Objectivist dream. The latter is its primary function. I suppose there's a scientist somewhere who also dreams: of obtaining absolute zero.

--Brant

We can never be rid of disease either. But we don't give up hygiene, vaccines, and medical check-ups. We don't start off by declaring, it's okay for some people to die because it's not a perfect world.

I said no such thing. Your moral hubris stinks.

--Brant

[Selene]

In reality...

A Charlotte, North Carolina man has his neighbors fed up after standing in the doorway of house naked every week for the last 10 years.

WBTV in North Carolina reports that neighbors say the man opens the door to his house in nothing but a smile, sometimes talking on a cell phone. The news report, which you can watch in the player above, goes on to say that even though neighbors have called the police several times, there is nothing they can do about it.

According to North Carolina law, a person can only be charged with indecent exposure if they “willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place and in the presence of any other person or persons.”

I am actually surprised that this is the local law...

So, while the guy is not doing anything unlawful, parents are still understandably concerned that children are seeing this man expose himself.

I was curious as to what would happen if someone in Texas did this. So, I contacted the Abilene Police Department, and was told that if someone is showing any part of their genital region, regardless if he/she is on private property or not, it is considered disorderly conduct, a Class C misdemeanor.

So, what are your thoughts on this? Should the man be punished for exposing himself? Or, should he be left alone to bask in his nakedness in his own home?

http://keyj.com/charlotte-man-who-stands-in-doorway-naked-has-neighbors-fed-up/?trackback=tsmclip

[BaalChatzaf]

In reality...

A Charlotte, North Carolina man has his neighbors fed up after standing in the doorway of house naked every week for the last 10 years.

WBTV in North Carolina reports that neighbors say the man opens the door to his house in nothing but a smile, sometimes talking on a cell phone. The news report, which you can watch in the player above, goes on to say that even though neighbors have called the police several times, there is nothing they can do about it.

According to North Carolina law, a person can only be charged with indecent exposure if they “willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place and in the presence of any other person or persons.”

I am actually surprised that this is the local law...

So, while the guy is not doing anything unlawful, parents are still understandably concerned that children are seeing this man expose himself.

I was curious as to what would happen if someone in Texas did this. So, I contacted the Abilene Police Department, and was told that if someone is showing any part of their genital region, regardless if he/she is on private property or not, it is considered disorderly conduct, a Class C misdemeanor.

So, what are your thoughts on this? Should the man be punished for exposing himself? Or, should he be left alone to bask in his nakedness in his own home?

http://keyj.com/charlotte-man-who-stands-in-doorway-naked-has-neighbors-fed-up/?trackback=tsmclip

It is not nice to put outsiders in the position of averting their eyes. It is a form of disturbing the Peace, much like loud noises after bed time.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jules Troy]

I think it would be worth the assault charge to smoke him with a few paintball rounds to the nuts. Maybe after getting nutshot 5 or 6 times he would learn to close his freaking door. Sick fugger.