” Wow. In China, the “moral outrage” police aren’t in charge, at least not as they are in most of America. This article is about how a woman was NOT reprimanded, let alone arrested, for her toplessness on a beach because there were no laws banning it…”
A blog post from Lew Rockwell, about a Belgian-Chinese teacher who went topless, but wasn’t hassled by the police because there was no law against toplessness.
(I’ll get the links up a little later – in a rush)
If the blog post confined itself to admiring the fact that officials didn’t trot her off because there was no law against toplessness, I’d be in agreement. It does say something positive about China that the officials wanted to stick with the law. But it doesn’t say nearly as much as the article’s author seems to think. I’m more inclined to think it tells us how foreigners (half or full) can get away with things locals can’t.
But if we’re meant to admire the story as a kind of libertarian fable, I’m a bit baffled. I doubt if local Chinese people liked the display – despite the gawkers and photographers – and thumbing your nose at every kind of social convention doesn’t strike me as the actions of a free spirit so much as the rudeness of the very selfish. If I turned up at Christmas mass in the US in a loin cloth (as many swamis in India might attend a religious ceremony), is that to be applauded or does it show my utter lack of respect for how other people might feel?
The latter, in my opinion. I might not want a law against rudeness, but as a libertarian, I would support censure and disapprobation for it.
[Substitute a man pulling down his shorts on a beach, and see if you think that should fly too].
Unfortunately this inability to discriminate between contexts seems to be pervasive in political discourse today. If people would consider context, you’d see this has nothing to do with the moral police. It has everything to do with courtesy, respect for others, and cultural sensitivity.
Don’t insist on wearing your entire native paraphernalia complete with feathers and train on a public bus in France; don’t wear daisy dukes to a corporate office in Manhattan, and don’t take your top off where it’s not done. It’s uncouth.
We needn’t have laws against it. But we should have public opinion against it.
Public opinion that applauds uncouthness and uncivility doesn’t encourage libertarianism. It encourages license. Which in turn invites an expansion of the state.
Libertarians always seem to forget that if the beach were privately owned, the rules for the beach would be set by the owner. I suspect that most such rules would enforce conservative values, modesty and courtesy.
Libertarianism should mean private rules, not a total lack of rules.
I don’t know, for many, liberty Is rudeness, that’s why there’s such an attempt to stamp it out. One person’s trash is anothers treasure. No harm, no foul. I suppose that’s why there’s doormen, covercharges, and dress codes, to try to pre-select the behavior of the crowds.
well, no one is saying to pass laws against it..
but I don’t know that there’s no harm..
There’s just no easily quantifiable and universally accepted harm..
One shouldn’t get offended unnecessarily, but if you live in a beautiful city and crowds of uncouth mannerless people, with questionable personal hygiene start flooding it, I’d say there is harm..to the quality of life, to the aesthetics.
If you live in a pretty neighborhood of antique homes and you paint your house bright pink and build odd attachments onto it, it certainly ruins the neighborhood for every one else..it can certainly damage property prices and value
If you move into my quiet family neighborhood and open a strip club with shady characters and my five year old daughter has to walk past on her way to school, you certainly increase my anxiety…and possibly increase the danger to my daughter..for some strange reason, I prefer my daughter not to hang around the clientele of strip clubs
If I walk into a bank to do business and you insist on conducting business, say, topless, I think I’d be annoyed.
Amazing that the same people who find tribal people barbaric for going round without too many clothes, then consider it the peak of enlightenment to strip wherever they feel like it
You can’t blame people for thinking that some libertarians sound like nothing more than greedy pot heads..
well, no one is saying to pass laws against it..
[But it’s suggested, or hinted.]
but I don’t know that there’s no harm..
[No physical injury, no property damage.]
There’s just no easily quantifiable and universally accepted harm..
[Is it broken or bleeding?]
One shouldn’t get offended unnecessarily, but if you live in a beautiful city and crowds of uncouth mannerless people, with questionable personal hygiene start flooding it, I’d say there is harm..to the quality of life, to the aesthetics.
[Isn’t that exactly what was and is said about people of color or certain ethnicity in many areas today, and more so sixty years ago and further back?]
If you live in a pretty neighborhood of antique homes and you paint your house bright pink and build odd attachments onto it, it certainly ruins the neighborhood for every one else..it can certainly damage property prices and value
[Seems to be an intellectual property issue, lots online about that. Not to, “everyone” is the neighborhood ruined. H.OA.s are the cure for that, but then you don’t really own the property then, the members of the H.O.A. do.]
If you move into my quiet family neighborhood and open a strip club with shady characters and my five year old daughter has to walk past on her way to school, you certainly increase my anxiety…and possibly increase the danger to my daughter..for some strange reason, I prefer my daughter not to hang around the clientele of strip clubs
[Again, H.O.A.s. And how do you assure you’re not letting your daughter face the same danger or hang around with this clientele without a strip club nearby? ESP?]
If I walk into a bank to do business and you insist on conducting business, say, topless, I think I’d be annoyed.
[The same is said of so many other personal preferences or cultural and racial differences. For instance, this must be how many Arabs see women doing certain things, like driving?]
Amazing that the same people who find tribal people barbaric for going round without too many clothes, then consider it the peak of enlightenment to strip wherever they feel like it
[Ethno centrists?]
You can’t blame people for thinking that some libertarians sound like nothing more than greedy pot heads..
[…because those, “people” are misguided, ethno centric, egotistical, close-minded snobs? Who would expect less from the same kind of people who supported the eradication of the native Americans or modern day Middleastern natives, the slavery and segregation of the colored races and other misfit European races, and maintained the my-house-is-better-worth-more-because-it’s-different-here mindset that so exemplified the housing bubble? Yes, they can be blamed for thinking such, it’s why tasers are so widely misused and blood draws are expanding in usage and torture is the norm, and on and on. That Is the tyranny of the majority over the minority.]
Bravo. My sentiments exactly. In fact I think society becomes overly-lawed (and lawyered) when the forces of social disapproval break down.
Hi Clark –
Yes, I think there are good reasons to expect people who go to another country to try to conform in some ways..I don’t think that’s an authoritarian demand…
I think suggesting that that is a step to tasering is a giant leap too far…
I don’t know why it’s “tyranny” to expect people to show politeness or restraint..
Indeed, if I went to Saudi Arabia, I would conform to their expectations in things less than matters of conscience…
An Arab woman in the west could conform to both her religious conscience and to western sensibilities by wearing a long dark skirt and a head cover and long sleeves..she would look something like the Amish..How hard would that be?
In other words, a little give and take, not the kind of obdurate, intransigent refusal to compromise that precisely ends in tyranny..
By, the way , in the US, visas are being refused to very westernized, skilled Asians – so obviously that kind of protectionist control of immigration has nothing to do with sensibilities and everything to do with politics..
As for previous immigration controls, I find it odd that you would think that any immigrant from Asia is necessarily an uncouth person who wouldn’t pay some lipservice to the country they live in..I fail to see why it’s tyrannical to expect them to.
It is one thing to bar people from migration based on color (an attribute that is “suspect”) – it’s another to bar them because of negative behavior and lack of skills or refusal to work or criminality..
In fact, I find the people who reach for tasers are usually people who refuse to compromise on anything…
If you want to see an anything goes society…pure libertarian, by your definition, I suggest you live in India…anything goes…you can wander out in your night gown, squat down on the field, throw your trash in someone else’s garden (it’s biodegradable, so no harm done, and it saves one person at least the energy of walking to a dust bin, so hey, it’s actually net positive if you do the cost-benefit analysis)…
..yippeee..
If you think the only harm done is when there’s a broken arm, then I suggest you are out of step even with US intelligence which believes mental harm can be worse..
If I played music night and day in my house, and it disturbed you, how do you prove harm? You haven’t broken an arm have you? Your ear drums are still intact? Obviously, you still got some sleep..
And yes, I am free to believe that my daughter might be more endangered by people who like going to strip clubs rather than people who don’t. You’re free to believe the opposite. You go live in a neighborhoods with strip clubs and pink houses. I’ll live in mine with antiques and catholic churches (not that I am a catholic, I’m not but I almost become one when I look at the churches)…
let’s have a bit of cultural segregation. In my neighborhood, I’ll restrain myself from spitting, sticking gum on things and walking around half naked. You do that in yours. Everyone’s happy. There’s diversity. But don’t come to my neighborhood where all 100 of us are happy and expect the hundred to conform to your one preference. That’s the tyranny of the minority.
Clark —
No one is saying to pass laws against stripping – that’s your unwarranted inference.
Because one shouldn’t pass laws against something doesn’t mean you approve of it..
I don’t think eating meat is very good for you, I disapprove of eating veal – I’ve yet to support a law against it.
Why does libertarianism mean “approving” everything?
You can watch child porn if you like in your house…enjoy orgies..swap wives or anything else..I will defend your right to do it..
You might even enjoy watching snuff movies..
I don’t want to stop you doing it, but if I choose my friends, I’d prefer not to have one who enjoyed watching snuff movies..is that OK with you? Or do I have to approve it, to be libertarian enough for you..
You have to admit that
1. There is a difference between what you do in your bedroom and what you do in the public square, where other people have rights too
2. That sometimes, your bedroom behavior might legitimately be of concern to others (you could be having sex with your 7 year old daughter..which might make me reluctant to entrust my seven year old to you, even if, in the public square you conducted yourself just fine). It may be true that my concern should stop at concern or in choosing for myself (which it does). By all means, send your kid to study with the pedophile. By all means let him teach. But let me choose to disapprove and send my children elsewhere…is that libertarian enough?
3. My concern and public expression of my concern has as much right to be expressed as your love of having sex with children, stripping, smoking pot or anything else..
Why is it ok for youto support stripping in public but not ok for me to criticize it? Both expressions after all are free speech..
If you can assume my free speech disapproving something will lead to laws, I must assume that your free speech in support will lead to laws compelling stripping..
That would be equally logical as an inference.
4. I think it is entirely libertarian to disapprove or use social censuring to modify or encourage behavior..
I am not asking or expecting the government to do the censuring..that’s not the government’s business. But because I don’t think the gvt should restrain private behavior that doesn’t mean individuals can’t express dislike or disapproval!!
These are pervasive confusions in libertarian reasoning, I’ve noticed.
And, by the way, you’re making a fallacious slippery slope argument instead of arguing the point
And the native american massacres are a misguided comparison.
The europeans who came to the US were intruding in the native american’s space..they should have conformed themselves to the people there, not massacred them..
So your example actually supports my point..the people entering another group that has priority of occupancy do indeed have some obligations to them – of courtesy, respect, cooperation..
The Europeans instead overrode the prior occupants of the country.
Also, re your point about majority tyranny, for minorities to have rights, majorities must have them too..or your argument lacks a foundation
Acknowledging the rights of others doesn’t mean you are subjecting yourself to tyranny
Unless you think a social code telling people not blow their noses in public, or spit in public, or defecate in the gutter, is also “tyrannical”
Maybe some people do..
as I said, I wonder why they don’t go and live in the countries where people do whatever they want? Many of the libertarians making these sorts of arguments, probably live in homogeneous communities with vast spaces, have never lived anywhere but the US and have never traveled..
Try living in small, densely crowded neighborhoods and see how fast you’ll understand the need for civility and genuine respect between groups..
Context is subjective.
Going from conforming, to tasering, isn’t a giant leap. Tasering is the manifestation of the desire of the masses to force the minority to conform, irrespective of property rights, liberty and due process.
It’s only tyranny to show politeness and restraint if it’s forced on someone by the threat of force. A mugging is forced charity, be polite and give.
An Arab woman in the west who chooses to conform to western sensibilities is different than one who is prohibited by law from not choosing to do so, but is forced to do so, tyranny.
US visas being refused, *is* politics, a large scale H.O.A.?
*I* don’t think immigrants from Asia wouldn’t pay some lip service to the country they live in – but many others do – the same people who would erect barriers to Asians or any other undesirable group from moving into their neighborhood and changing the aesthetics. It’s tyrannical when, for example, Asians are allowed to immigrate so long as they stay in their allotted neighborhoods and don’t drink from the same public water fountains as everyone else, all under the force of law, not including H.O.A.’s.
The people who reach for tasers do indeed compromise, when it’s their own who are the ones in question. Cops rarely get DUI’s after getting caught, etc…
Libertarianism doesn’t mean anything goes. People wander through the malls in pajamas in the non-libertarian US, and if you want to squat down in your own field, that’s your business, but do it in on someone else’s and much like throwing trash, it’s a trespassing/property rights issue. A solution is much like the response to a path worn by trespassers, either use the salt load, build a fence or form a H.O.A..
How is a freight train blowing its whistle at every hour of the day, or police and fire sirens any different than loud music? One group can, and another can’t? Again, for the music, H.O.A.’s or apartment and rental agreements.
I don’t think libertarianism means “approving” everything. I think it means not everything is unapproved unless permission is granted and above all, respect of property rights.
Lots of, “you” statements, I’m feeling a bit attacked.
1. I don’t know… if people did their bedroom stuff in public it might be less offensive than the people who marched in military garb shouting zieg heil, or wearing gangster/rap apparel and picking their nose while driving.
2. Not sure what do make of that?
3. It’s ok for you to criticize stripping in public. Again, with the, “you” statements? Perhaps you’re reading something in my words which are not there or meant to be?
I didn’t assume that your disapproving of stripping will lead to laws [Or maybe I do? This is getting to be like a yarnball.] I meant seeing simple rudeness as correctable with violence producing laws is stepping on liberty, without involving property damage, how else is public opinion (censure and disapprobation) enforced in a public setting?
…Or something like that, thoughts not easily conveyed while trying to be brief.
If it were a man doing so, I would probably not go back to that beach, if I was offended, which I wouldn’t be, just turned off.
4. I agree.
It was late and I was tired and I probably did slip down a slope. I’m just not a good enough writer or thinker.
I hope I didn’t piss you off or offend you, it seems I have, that wasn’t my intention.
And, the native American massacres seem to be exactly the comparison. They didn’t act, think, look, or behave as the majority expected, so they were tortured, killed, and subjugated to stop them from the equivalent of building little pink houses, stripping in public, or doing anything else the majority found to be rude, etc…
The Europeans didn’t need to conform to the native Americans, they simply needed to respect property rights and didn’t. None should have priority of occupany, other than the owners, while respecting property rights of all.
Maybe I should give up this writing/questioning streak and stop skipping lunch?
Hi Clark –
No I’m not annoyed at all..
maybe I argue sharply and you think it’s personal…
the word “you” wasn’t you but generic…the colloquial version of “one”.
OK. there is a big step from not liking something and wanting to pass a law about it.
And you can see that from the way I defend people who think very differently from me, including fundamentalist Christians like Palin. I’ve very liberal and yet, who’s the person defending her – liberals?
No..it’s someone like me, because I recognize there are limits to things..
and a lot of what’s called free speech is just abuse..
1. Yes, dumping trash on someone’s property would be a property rights issue..but guess what, people who are so uncivil as to consider every social convention an imposition on their rights, eventually end up ignoring property rights too..
that’s why the american masses aren’t asking to undo the bail out – it’s asking to get a cut of it..
That’s why there’s always a desire to raise taxes on someone else..
2. People dump trash on public property too…so at some point, it’s not law or public-private distinctions, but self restraint and public culture that matters.
3. I disapprove of a lot of things – I have never voted for new laws..I tend to prefer the status quo because for me, constant change and proliferation of laws is worse than anything else.
4. Pot heads are some of my best friends…and so are libertines ..as well as fundamentalists..free marketers and socialists..I don’t tell them what to do or think, but I sure think I can express my opinion with equal freedom, without the second coming of hitler being sounded? (haha, joke)
5. I hope you don’t think the west is dying from too much restraint? Because it’s not…it’s dying from license, where there should be restraint, and conformity, where there should rebellion.
It’s dying from underregulation of the largest groups and over regulation of everyone else..
it’s dying of mawkishness in the place of good sense and hard heartedness where there should be sentiment and emotion..
right is wrong..black is white..
the word is malinvestment.
We get worked up about non essential things and ignore all important things.
And we constantly talk in terms of “rights’ – very aggressively construed, when we should talk about responsibilities as well..
…and don’t skip lunch or stop writing..
by the way, have you read ferfal’s survival book?
I hear it’s good
I have not read ferfal’s survival book. It’s on my list, but there are so many things above it. If I read that book I have a feeling I’m going to want body armor and then I’ll really be considered nutz by everyone.
I did read all of the ferfal blog entries and if the book is anything like the blog, oh that would be something I’m sure.
Still recovering from reading the Katrina Hurricane blog/book. Got my 30 second bug out bag assembled and not much of a plan after that,… so far.
…then I got sucked into reading the reviews of ferfal’s survival book…
I found an example of a young woman who recently was arrested for being topless in the U.S. in public, while the topless males around her were left alone. In some asian countries, topless males are considered offensive too, or so I’ve been told by them… after they let me walk around in the downtown of Kyoto topless – thinking it was not any big deal – it was hot, yet I wasn’t arrested. I’ll bet they still laugh at what they did. I wonder if this girl still thinks she can do what boys can and will laugh about it later? So much for equality, eh?:
http://newhampshirefreepress.com/node/486
Hi Clark –
equality is equality under the law for equal work..it doesn’t mean equality for things that aren’t equal
A woman taking of her clothes in public will certainly be more disruptive than a man..
Not that I support an arrest for it..but let’s not confuse apples and oranges..
Men and women are equal, but not in a mathematical way. They are of equal value – to the law, to moral life etc.
That doesn’t mean their actions are always equivalent.
Check out how many women were among the financial crooks of the past 15 years…nada, right?
Doesn’t mean women are angels, – it just means they don’t commit the same sort of crimes or act in the same sort of way..so should we cry discrimination and look for all the female financial crooks that are missing..
or should we take time out from our own idiocy in mistaking moral equality with literal equality?
I thought it was equality for how the law is applied to everyone. So too must this girl and many like her. And, it depends on which man, say if a popular movie star guy was there shirtless there would have been a huge disruptive commotion, but no arrest of the man. The woman might not even be noticed then.
I hadn’t considered there being no women top crooks. Either that or women are better crooks and don’t get caught, or if they do, they get let off somehow? Probably not though. In the New Hampshire link, I thought it was funny that the cops sirens and cars were pointed out as being a bigger nuisance than the girl.
Hi Clark –
yes, it is equality in application for the law..
for “like” actions.
But the actions aren’t alike – to my mind.
Not that I think this is an issue for the law – for anything less than quantifiable harm, the law is a bad instrument.
I am just saying female nudity has a different effect from male nudity.
And a nude male celebrity adds the element of celebrity to the issue.
All I am making is the fairly obvious point
that a naked woman walking down a street will certainly (if she is young and attractive) cause a traffic jam. A naked man (even if young and attractive) won’t cause equal commotion.
Sorry if that gets in the way of anyone’s theory, but that’s how it is, as far as I can see..
Female sexual power seems to be largely (though not solely) exerted through physical appearance. Male sexual power is exerted more through status, money..
I don’t mean to be a biological determinist by observing this, but on the other hand, butting heads with biology is kind of futile..
When I see good-looking women lining up to marry the hunky waiter instead of the not-so-hunky CEO, when it’s universal that women marry men 3-10 years younger.. …and when men are staying at home with the kids, while their wives struggle to pay child support…then we can revisit the double standards criticism..