Ever get the feeling that someone is watching you?

February 24, 2004 8:29 AM

We libertarians can be forgiven for suspecting that legal sanctions against vice are not the concern of normal, healthy human beings. They are the concern of busybodies. And busybodies, for the record, are people who spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about what other people do in private. They hatch plans to catch their victims, engage in voyeurism as they peep into windows, and then break into homes and businesses to arrest their prey with the help of professional“busybody enablers”(pdf) called vice cops.
posted by dejah420 (11 comments total)

"Paging Log Cabin Republicans, Paging Log Cabin Republicans, white courtesy telephone, pleassse.....Paging Log Cabin...."
posted by troutfishing at 8:42 AM on February 24, 2004

Oops, wrong thread. Damn. Sorry, dejah420 (move that comment down to Mary Cheney land) ; (
posted by troutfishing at 8:45 AM on February 24, 2004

So - in short - this is a new form of legalized voyeuristic peversion.

Ken Starr's release of all the intimate details of MonicaGate - the cigar, the dick sucking, the thong, all of it - comes to mind.

I think the GOP has become obsessed with smut.......

And they're not above inflicting their perverted obsessions on INNOCENT AMERICA CHILDREN, in their craven pursuit of poltical gain !

/political screed
posted by troutfishing at 8:56 AM on February 24, 2004

Are these the same Republicans who are always going on about the "nanny state?"
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:18 AM on February 24, 2004

On a related note, has anyone noticed that the FX channel shows several episodes of Cops apparently every single night?
posted by clevershark at 9:24 AM on February 24, 2004

But if the busybodies can't mind other people's business, evildoers like this will remain free!
posted by homunculus at 11:30 AM on February 24, 2004

It all starts at the top.
posted by homunculus at 11:32 AM on February 24, 2004

I think vice laws are fine to some degree. The idea with libertarians, objectivists, etc. is usually that anyone in their right mind should be allowed individual freedom, but I think the society should view anyone who's willing to take crack as mentally compromised in some way. There's no "sane" motivation, other than trying to enhance an unpriveleged or understimulated life (mentally ill), ignorance (mentally compromised or uninformed), or self-destruction (mentally ill). Gayness, however, doesn't fall into that because few people would argue it's almost guaranteed to lead to ruin, except from a religious standpoint.

Also (change of point here), aren't most libertarians anti-marriage in general? If so, shouldn't gay marriage be considered as expanding the reach of what is a costly (to the economy - insurance companies etc.) and superfluous institution in the first place. I know if I believed in liberty and reduced law as the most important form of progress I'd be strongly against gay marriage, since it's significantly expanding government influence. Am I wrong here?
posted by abcde at 5:20 PM on February 24, 2004

There's no sane reason to drink alcohol, either.

Or, for that matter, to skydive. What's your point?
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 7:02 PM on February 24, 2004

since it's significantly expanding government influence. Am I wrong here?

The same laws should apply to everyone. The less laws the better, but since no one's talking seriously about removing marriage benefits entirely, everyone should have access to the benefits.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 7:22 PM on February 24, 2004

"I think the society should view anyone who's willing to take crack as mentally compromised in some way"

Wow.
Most impressive.

Just to be clear you understand how a libertarian sees this, you're willing to give government the power to mandate from on high what behavior counts as automatic proof that one is mentally incompetent, and so grant and remove liberty at will, on a conveniantly supplied pretext.

In fact, I've never qualified my belief that civil liberties should be as unconstrained as possible with statements like "BUT to qualify for these innate human rights you need to prove mental competence." It doesn't work that way. People should be maximally free from government interference in their lives.

Does this mean that I would just ignore someone about to, say, jump off a building? Of course not. I am not, however, the government, and I am capable of juding borderline situations on a case by case basis. Government is capable of instituting zero-tolerance policies and putting people in jail.
posted by kavasa at 9:05 PM on February 24, 2004