Andrew; Move to the UK!

[rubato]

It is only a false equivalence if they are not equivalent.

But they are strongly equivalent in an important sense. Both are laws against doing something which does not harm anyone else, which does not deprive anyone else of their civil rights. While having people walking around naked might be aesthetically repugnant there are a lot of other things which are equally or even more aesthetically repugnant which are not prohibited.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

And I was thinking that he was saying the naked rambler was fucking Welsh girls on his way, but that might be bestiality more than miscegenation.

Shows how wrong one can be.

yrs,
rubato

[The Hen]

Ahh yet more shit comes. What a surprise.

[Sue U]

Andrew can certainly speak for himself, but I take his point to be that anti-nudity laws, like anti-miscegenation laws, are based on nothing but the perception of public taste rather than serving any utilitarian function to promote an orderly society. In both cases, it's a matter of "we don't like to see that in public."

But he is suggesting that if Gob agrees with one law then he must be a "big fan" of another, entirely seperate law.

That in itself is both ludicrous and a sure sign of a weak/non-existent argument.

No, it's drawing attention to the logical inconsistency of supporting one law while deploring the other if you're arguing solely on the grounds of "equal treatment." If the only rationale for a legal restriction is that all people are restricted equally, then that's not much of an argument in its favor. It is the same as saying that homosexuals are not discriminated against by restrictive marriage laws because all people are equally prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex, or that no one is discriminated against by anti-miscegenation laws because all people are eqally prohibited from marrying someone of a different "race."

The fact that a law may be characterized as "non-discriminatory" is not a very good basis for public policy. If the goal or shared value of a society is to maximize individual liberty, then there should be a presumption against restrictions on individual conduct that does not impair the functioning of that society. The first principle of a free society is that there should be a presumption in favor of individual liberty and against governmental coercion; all restrictions on conduct must be justified by demonstration of some societal harm resulting from that activity and tailored as narrowly as possible to reach only that specific harm, without any more infringement on personal liberty than absolutely necessary to address the particular harm.

[The Hen]

I see.

So if you support circumcision, you must also be in favour of female general mutilation. That makes perfect sense.

[Gob]

Or, using the example given, if you support men being allowed to go topless, and women going to be allowed to go topless, then you must support people of different races not being allowed to marry.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Lord Jim]

The basic logical problem here is the attempt to conflate the important with the trivial....

The effort to try and draw a meaningful analogy between the right of people of different skin colors to marry, (to cite but one overblown analogy made in this discussion) and the supposed "right" of people (regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or any other condition over which they have no control) to ponce about starkers in the public square....

Analogies of this sort have the affect of both trivializing the importance of the significant, and elevating the importance of the trivial....

If the only rationale for a legal restriction is that all people are restricted equally, then that's not much of an argument in its favor.

But that's not the only rationale....

The rationale is that we, collectively as a society or as individual communities, have a right to impose certain minimal levels of comportment on behavior in the public square, provided, they do not impinge on fundamental rights, that would trump those restrictions....

I submit that curbing the "right" of folks to walk about down Main St. waving their willies for all to see easily falls beneath that bar....

[Sue U]

The rational is that we, collectively as a society or as individual communities, have a right to impose certain minimal levels of comportment on behavior in the public square, provided, they do not impinge on fundamental rights, that would trump those restrictions....

So you admit, then, that there is no basis for the rule other than majoritarian say-so, and that you start from the premise that government can impose whatever restrictions it likes without any other justification. Is that really what you believe should be the governing principles of a free society?

So if you support circumcision, you must also be in favour of female general mutilation. That makes perfect sense.

Or, using the example given, if you support men being allowed to go topless, and women going to be allowed to go topless, then you must support people of different races not being allowed to marry.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Yes, if you're arguing solely on the grounds of "equal treatment" (and ignoring the fact that "supporting" something is not the same thing as "opposing restrictions on someone's right to do" something.)

[Gob]

Sue is it not entirely possible for one to have an opinion on going topless, and a different one on mixed race marriages?

Andrew's introduction of this strawman of "anti-miscegenation," is just, that a pure strawman.

Also, the fact that he is arguing that my stating that someone going naked in public is being treated equitably under UK law, means I must also support a law which has never existed in the UK, is rather stupid to say the least,.

[Sue U]

Gob, you seem to be missing the point. It's not whether you might have different opinions on different subjects (of course you do!), it's that mere aesthetic opinion shouldn't be the sole justification for legislation that restricts ANY personal conduct -- even if that legislation treated everyone "equally." The discussion of anti-miscegenation laws is not a strawman, it is an example of an obviously egregious form of that kind of legislation. As I said to Jim, if you are proceeding from the premise that government can do whatever it likes to restrict any kind of conduct that a significant number of people simply don't care for, then it doesn't seem to be a very sound way to secure individual liberty or run a free society.

[Lord Jim]

So you admit, then, that there is no basis for the rule other than majoritarian say-so, and that you start from the premise that government can impose whatever restrictions it likes without any other justification.

I never said anything anything of the sort...

I may not know much, but I am The World's Greatest Living Authority On What I Said:

And here again, is what I said:

The rationale is that we, collectively as a society or as individual communities, have a right to impose certain minimal levels of comportment on behavior in the public square, provided, they do not impinge on fundamental rights, that would trump those restrictions....

Let me repeat the second part of what I said, again, for emphasis:

provided, they do not impinge on fundamental rights, that would trump those restrictions....

Sue, I'm disappointed that you would claim that I said:

that government can impose whatever restrictions it likes without any other justification.

When I was so very specific about under what circumstances I believe government (by which I mean ":the community"...funny how we use the word "government", versus "community" depending on which ideological ox is being gored... ) should be able to claim those rights...

[Gob]

Gob, you seem to be missing the point. It's not whether you might have different opinions on different subjects (of course you do!), it's that mere aesthetic opinion shouldn't be the sole justification for legislation that restricts ANY personal conduct -- even if that legislation treated everyone "equally." The discussion of anti-miscegenation laws is not a strawman, it is an example of an obviously egregious form of that kind of legislation.

I do not think that the miscegenation laws, which, for the third time, have never existed in the UK, were done solely on "mere aesthetic opinion". But yet again, it's purely a strawman on Andrew's part to introduce into this debate the lie that I would support them, if they existed, as I think the UK's laws on nudity are reasonable.

Doesn't the fact that even the US has ended its miscegenation laws make this a stupid point in any case?

[Sue U]

So you admit, then, that there is no basis for the rule other than majoritarian say-so, and that you start from the premise that government can impose whatever restrictions it likes without any other justification.

I never said anything anything of the sort...

I may not know much, but I am The World's Greatest Living Authority On What I Said:

And here again, is what I said:

The rationale is that we, collectively as a society or as individual communities, have a right to impose certain minimal levels of comportment on behavior in the public square, provided, they do not impinge on fundamental rights, that would trump those restrictions....

Let me repeat the second part of what I said, again, for emphasis:

provided, they do not impinge on fundamental rights, that would trump those restrictions....

Sue, I'm disappointed that you would claim that I said:

that government can impose whatever restrictions it likes without any other justification.

When I was so very specific about under what circumstances I believe government (by which I mean ":the community"...funny how we use the word "government", versus "community" depending on which ideological ox is being gored... ) should be able to claim those rights...

Jim, a justification is quite a different thing than a limitation. You said quite clearly (and repeated here again) there need be no justification for a law other than "we" get to "impose certain minimal levels of comportment on behavior." Why? What is the justification? What is the objective harm to the functioning of society that is the target of such restrictions? The fact that you limit such potential tyrrany with "provided they do not impinge on fundamental rights" is irrelevant. You have already ceded to the government power to enact all kinds of restrictions on conduct based on nothing more than the say-so of a sufficient number of people, and now you've put yourself in a position where you'd have to argue that some fundamental right (whatever that is) is being impinged.

Doesn't the fact that even the US has ended its miscegenation laws make this a stupid point in any case?

No, it is precisely the point: Eventually there came a time (1967, fer chrissakes) when the Supreme Court put its foot down and declared there was no legitimate purpose to such laws and the canard of "equal treatment under the law" could not sustain them.

But as a general proposition of government, don't you think there must be some legitimate govermental purpose that can be clearly articulated before the government can restrict what you may and may not do?

[Lord Jim]

The fact that you limit such potential tyrrany with "provided they do not impinge on fundamental rights" is irrelevant.

Oh, I completely disagree; it's not "irrelevant", it's central...

Whether or not the State (or community) is exercising its power in a way that impinges on fundamental rights, or is exercising it in a way that lies within its discretion, is the whole issue....

And I steadfastly maintain that laws and ordinances prohibiting folks from walking about in the-all-together in the public square, meets that bar....

I'm prepared to be proven wrong, of course...

But I won't wait up all night expecting that...

[Gob]

But as a general proposition of government, don't you think there must be some legitimate govermental purpose that can be clearly articulated before the government can restrict what you may and may not do?

yes, but making bland stupid and meaningless accusations such as "if you support X you must support Y" isn't going to further this debate any a all is it?

[Lord Jim]

I return to what I said initially...

Here's what I would say to Mr. Gough, if I had the opportunity...:

If you believe that walking around buck nekkid is more important than having a relationship with your family and your children, then you've got some very serious problems....

How many Christmases did you miss? How many birthdays? Because walking around naked was more important to you....? ???

If you believe that walking around naked is more important to you than that, you are certifiably crazy....(not an acceptable mental health term, but it will do...)

And if you have somehow deluded yourself into believing that your commitment to walking about starkers in some way makes you the moral equivalent of Gandhi or Nelson Mandela....

You are really delusional....

You are not a Gandhi, you are not a Mandela...

You are just a sad little man who lost what he could have had by making a fool out of himself and wasting his life...

[Andrew D]

Sue U is nailing this.

The discussion of anti-miscegenation laws is not a strawman, it is an example of an obviously egregious form of that kind of legislation.

That is correct: Plainly, there are sigtnificant differences between nudity laws and miscegenation laws. In the relevant sense, however, the laws are analogous.

If the only rationale for a legal restriction is that all people are restricted equally, then that's not much of an argument in its favor. It is the same as saying that homosexuals are not discriminated against by restrictive marriage laws because all people are equally prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex, or that no one is discriminated against by anti-miscegenation laws because all people are eqally prohibited from marrying someone of a different "race."

That is correct: Plainly, there are differences between laws against nudity, laws against interracial marriage, and laws against homosexual marriage. In the relevant sense, however, the laws are analogous.

Jim, a justification is quite a different thing than a limitation. You said quite clearly (and repeated here again) there need be no justification for a law other than "we" get to "impose certain minimal levels of comportment on behavior." Why? What is the justification? What is the objective harm to the functioning of society that is the target of such restrictions? The fact that you limit such potential tyrrany with "provided they do not impinge on fundamental rights" is irrelevant. You have already ceded to the government power to enact all kinds of restrictions on conduct based on nothing more than the say-so of a sufficient number of people, and now you've put yourself in a position where you'd have to argue that some fundamental right (whatever that is) is being impinged.

That is correct: The fact that Lord Jim added a qualification -- "provided" -- to his opening premise does not change the meaning of the opening premise itself. (And although Lord Jim may be the world's greatest living authority on what he means, he is not the world's greatest living authority on the objective meaning of the words he uses.)

[Andrew D]

In contrast, this:

Whether or not the State (or community) is exercising its power in a way that impinges on fundamental rights, or is exercising it in a way that lies within its discretion, is the whole issue....

is exactly wrong. It assumes that government does not need a justification for its behavior in the first place -- that a governmental action exceeds the scope of that government's just powers only if that action "impinges on fundamental rights".

Thus, Sue U is (again) exactly correct when she writes:

So you admit, then, that there is no basis for the rule other than majoritarian say-so, and that you start from the premise that government can impose whatever restrictions it likes without any other justification.

By not requiring that the government justify its actions unless they "impinge[] on fundamental rights," Lord Jim has made exactly that admission.

And conspicuously absent is any answer from Lord Jim to Sue U's spot-on question:

Is that really what you believe should be the governing principles of a free society?

That absence is hardly surprising. Lord Jim's stated position is an excellent example of marginally-limited majoritarianism: It begins with the premise that the government can do anything it wants and then proceeds to an inquiry into whether a particular governmental action "impinges on fundamental rights" which trump the government's otherwise unbridled power.

In a free society, however, the initial inquiry is what justification the government has for imposing a restriction on individuals' behavior in the first place. Only after the government establishes the existence of such a justification does the inquiry proceed to whether the restriction violates a right which trumps the government's otherwise unjustified power.

[Andrew D]

As to the inapplicability of nudity laws, Gob himself has pointed out to us that going about in public naked will get one arrested, even if one is not arrested for violating a nudity law:

Ah well....

The so-called 'Naked Rambler' Stephen Gough has been arrested three days after he was released from prison.

* * *

A spokesman for Fife Constabulary said he was arrested following complaints from members of the public and has been charged with breach of the peace.

The fact (if it is a fact) that going about in public naked does not violate the nudity laws is small consolation to the person who gets arrested anyway for going about in public naked.

[Andrew D]

Consistently with his marginally-limited-majoritarian approach, Lord Jim misstates the questions which ought to be asked:

How many Christmases did you miss? How many birthdays? Because walking around naked was more important to you....?

The questions which ought be asked ought to be asked of those whose puerile prudishness is causing the problems:

How many Christmases did you force him to miss? How many birthdays? Because your not seeing a penis is more important to you than is an individual's liberty -- including your own?