The principle of libertarianism is that is it wrong to use force and fraud except in self-defense or defense of someone else from force and fraud.
Therefore, is the libertarian position that people should be able to walk around naked? Forgive the following, but what about other lewd acts such public sex and masturbation? Are these things in some way force or fraud, and if not, do you support continued criminalization or de-criminalization of these acts? If you support criminalization, in what why are these acts force or fraud?
Provided the property owner agrees, why criminalize them? In all likelihood they will not, so unless nudists get together and form their own community, I doubt public nudity and sexual exposure will be widespread.
What is “public space?” It seems to be a non-libertarian idea. In true liberty, all property (land) is owned, and an owner could allow anyone (the public) on his land, but it’s still privately owned, hence the owner has the final say on whether nudity (or masturbation, etc.) is allowed. “Public space” is currently land that the government “owns” and hence is available for anyone to use as they want (except that it really is only available for people to use under the government’s restrictions).
I fail to see the problem in that. As long as nudists do not hurt other persons or their property they are OK in my book. If a shop owner or landlord does not want them on his premises it’s in his right to deny access, even out of a whim.
Indecent acts per se are another entirely different matter. But if you take a stroll through some US and European cities they seem to have gained widespread acceptance.
I’d put them on the same level with prostitution, drugs and other victimless crimes. If every side in the ‘deal’ is ok with it there is nothing bad about it. Sex and nudity has is pseudoproblem anyway that is actually more a question of ones values.
How do you deal with the externality of a person running around on their private property doing very grotesquely lewd things, but in full few of others on their provate property? For example, what if someone with children can’t let their kids go out and play in the yard because the neighbor is touching themself at the edge of his private property and saying lewd things in so that that the children can hear it?
There’s no physical force or threat thereof in this situation, is it the libertarian position that the neighbor shold be allowed to do this?
I suppose one can simply move, but that’s not an easy or fun process.
I think it’s important that you said “can’t” (“what if someone with children can’t let their kids go out”) instead of “won’t.” If a neighbor is doing someone on their private property that you disagree with but where no aggression is involved, you are not prohibited or unable to let your kids go out to play where they may see/hear your neighbor - but you might choose to not let them out. Where is the aggression in this? Or: how is this not liberty? You can communicate with your neighbor and ask them to not to certain things where you kids might see/hear them. Or better, you could trade with your neighbor, maybe paying them (or exchanging favors like not playing your own music so loud or whatever) to not do certain things in certain places. Or you could build a fence or wall on your property and let your children play within that area. Or you could talk to other people in the community that agree with you and see if you could arrange an ostracism-based boycott of this neighbor to try to encourage them to change their ways. Or you could move. And I’m sure there are other liberty-based solutions.
That’s a good possibility. It might even be that the neighbor doesn’t think that his actions are offensive, and simply explaining to him that his actions are to you like Kenny G is to him (if, of course, he finds Kenny G offensive) might be enough to apologize and build his own wall (or change his habits).
Well, I’ve seen discussions about shining lasers and flashlights onto other people’s property - isn’t the nudist reflecting light rays onto your property in an offensive way?
Now, back to reality. It seems pretty clear to me that this is a problem for the neighbor, not the nudist. Let the neighbor accept the cost and build a wall. However, I’m inspired by Long’s handling of how to compensate the family of a murder victim to add another solution at a lower cost. The nudist clearly considers his actions perfectly acceptable, so respond in kind. Most people who complain about nudists aren’t particularly attractive, and so the nudist is likely to be happy to stop his actions, in exchange for the neighbor stopping his/theirs.
It’s clear that liberty contains many limits in itself but if started to not do anything that might be offensive to anyone we’d finally end up dead. Instead, whenever one purchases something, let’s say a home, one also has to take the risk that something he might not approve could come along with it. How he then deals with the problem is up to the negotiations. Basically, whoever was there first has the right, let’s not forget the homested principle. If one can come to a satisfactory compromise with the neighbour it’s his luck, if not then better luck next time.
I actually had almost this exact question from a friend I was talking to about libertarianism. He is a religious guy, but not a dogmatic evangelical - just a family guy who goes to church and so forth. He asked me ‘what if 2 guys move in next door to me and decide to start having gay sex outside?’ The idea that there was no handy libertarian solution to such a thing was a real obstacle for him to keep moving in the direction of liberty.
I think the answer above is probably the best answer I’ve seen - but I don’t think it will convince many.
I do think that it’s at best a highly theoretical question - in reality, even if we were miraculously able to achieve a quasi-libertarian society, there would always be community standards and enforcement of them, regardless of the purist position.
Yes. Why not? Is there something wrong with nudity?
If we abolished obscenity laws, the real world would just look more like the internet.
Sure, you’d see a fat naked person every now and then, public masturbation, and somebody eating poop, but it’d be pretty rare and when it happens, you can just look away.
In places where public nudity has been established, there haven’t been any major problems other than some people in San Francisco being a little freaked out by the naked yoga of George Davis:
One case I saw in (I believe it was Colorado) involved a naked pedophile hanging out around a school bus stop, whacking off. Obviously, this could be dealt with through criminal charges on either stalking or harassment charges.
Obscenity laws aren’t necessary, but make themselves necessary by making people oversensitive, precisely through shielding them from things that might offend them. They also act as a platform for people to ban political unpopular speech, in the case of Holocaust denial in Europe.
To understand the Libertarian justification for radical free speech, I suggest you read chapter two of On Liberty by John Stuart Mill:
He addresses your argument.
The worst part is the fact that obscenity can’t even be accurately defined. Literally the Supreme Court’s current definition of obscenity is “I don’t know how to describe it, but I know it when I see it.”
That’s absurd.
That would be very rare, because the person is damaging their own property in the process. Furthermore, gated communities won’t allow such behavior. And, if all else fails, you could take him to court and claim property damages. Unlike externalities like environmental harm, an externality like “naked neighbors” can be pretty easily dealt with a civil suit. Plus, if the neighbor is sexy, it might be a positive externality. [;)]
You just need to distinguish between offense and harm. “Offense” is not harm, but it is true that emotional harm can exist.
Even if I have the right to own a gun, I do not have the right to follow you around with my gun pointed at you, while masturbating, etc, etc..
When a person is put in a situation where they feel a strong sense of life-threatening fear, that’s “coercion.”
Shining lights and being naked isn’t in and of itself coercive. But if you’re doing it with the intent of causing harm to another person (emotional or physical) – which is the only real case where emotional harm would apply – a legal injunction even in a silly theoretical “Anarchist court” would still be available.
Nip this whole problem in the bud by establishing neighborhood covenants. A land developer, could, for instance, make all purchasers of parcels in his development agree to not act in lewd or indecent ways. The contract could define what “indecent” and “lewd” mean along with what happens when the contract is broken (who abritrates, potential penalties, etc.)
If I saw these covenants in place while I was in the process of purchasing a home, I would know that others have to abide by these rules as well and would know that this probably wouldn’t be a problem. On the other hand, if I liked to walk around nude and masturbate in public, I would look for a housing development that explicitly allowed such behavior or I would purchase a home in an area that does not have covenants.
Fantastic suggestion! I don’t like the term “neighborhood covenants” though - it sounds a little too “religiousy” to me (or maybe too “indiana Jonesy” ). Maybe the phrase “deed restrictions?”
Covenants are not a religious concept, they are a legal concept, although the term is employed in religion as well. And they already exist, they’re nothing new; they’d just play a greater role, presumably, in anarchism (or even minarchism.)
). Maybe the phrase “deed restrictions?”