France Asserts Women's Right to Wear Clothes

[fash]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you are going to advocate anti-authoritarian / libertarian ethic, then there should be no restriction and any restriction is authoritarian whether rooted in "natural discomfort" or not.

Libertarianism isn't anti-restriction. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want without consequences. On the contrary, libertarianism is very much about restriction e.g. physical removal off my property if I dislike you.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by fash [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Libertarianism isn't anti-restriction. Libertarianism is very much about restriction e.g. physical removal off my property if I dislike you.

Let's start with why your example is libertarian and then see if we can develop that into restrictions in clothing ^^

[fash]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let's start with why your example is libertarian and then see if we can develop that into restrictions in clothing ^^

Are you asking for a scenario in which clothing restrictions would arise in a libertarian society? Suppose the property owners in the local community hold similar mores about how people should dress. If you're on their property and don't observe said dress code, you're physically removed.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by fash [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Are you asking for a scenario in which clothing restrictions would arise in a libertarian society? Suppose the property owners in the local community hold similar mores about how people should dress. If you're on their property and don't observe said dress code, you're physically removed.

This is my point ^^ You're just being contrarian now, unless you want to argue that everything within a libertarian society is private property ^^

[entruil]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

People are always going to be uncomfortable about something. If you are going to advocate anti-authoritarian / libertarian ethic, then there should be no restriction and any restriction is authoritarian whether rooted in "natural discomfort" or not. That doesn't make the prohibition any more or less reasonable though^^

I read about an example but cant find ref atm... it was "Feinstein's Bus" iirc... bunch of smells and sights and sounds that might be annoying, but u can always get off the bus and catch the next one...


yea fash the "dam kids, get off my lawn" adds a nice twist.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by entruil [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I read about an example but cant find ref atm... it was "Feinstein's Bus" iirc... bunch of smells and sights and sounds that might be annoying, but u can always get off the bus and catch the next one...


yea fash the "dam kids, get off my lawn" adds a nice twist.

Yep, freedom of association, or dissociation ^^ If I don't like what others are doing I can go some place else. If others don't like what I am doing I probably will go someace else. Everyone should be like me in this regard ^^

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by fash [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

?? I was trying to makes heads or tails of your question/statement:



Not sure where you are trying to take the conversation with this. My point was that your characterization of any restriction as anti-libertarianism isn't accurate.

Selling Libertarianism, a school of thought espousing the virtues of liberty (freedom of choice, association, etc.) as a concept "very much about restrictions," (your words) is absurd ^^ Hence, you're being contrarian. It is only concerned with restriction of liberty insofar as that liberty infringes upon the Liberty of another.

The point is, as you restrict Liberty, you become less libertarian ^^

[fash]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Selling Libertarianism, a school of thought espousing the virtues of liberty (freedom of choice, association, etc.) as a concept "very much about restrictions," (your words) is absurd ^^ Hence, you're being contrarian. It is only concerned with restriction of liberty insofar as that liberty infringes upon the Liberty of another.

The point is, as you restrict Liberty, you become less libertarian ^^

And how is a libertarian order maintained? Think through how freedom of association will play out when you inevitably have people in conflict in proximity of one another. It will involve restricting people and physically removing them until they decide to "freely associate" elsewhere, e.g. in a different community.

I'd encourage you to read libertarian philosophers who address these issues e.g. Democracy, the God that Failed.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by big_ole_jpn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

natty argument is weak. I'd rather make the moral character of public spaces argument (cant be naked in public legally, right?). Keep your fetish gear to private functions and maybe permitted/planned events, not at places where people go to gather with a reasonable expectation of civility and minimal lasciviousness. This goes for furries and leather daddies as well as sex cultists.

And we can settle on that.

*Gavel drops*

/thread