TBIETER'S BOOK REVIEWS

[Richard Baron]

Good morning Richard,

But do you really want to live in a city where people can legally, in public, and at will, engage in all forms of sexual activity, litter, defecate, urinate, and do anything else while proclaiming the right to do so because such actions cause no harm others?

Dalrymple didn't. He retired and moved to France.

Tom

Defecation would be a health hazard, so I think one could justify a law against that. As for the rest, I fear that I must take my chances, call for the abolition of the laws and hope that people's desire for social approval will ensure that things do not get too messy. But I can well understand that you might want the experiment to be tried on this side of the Atlantic first, before deciding whether the United States should follow suit.

France is an interesting place to go in search of clean living. But it does have the advantage of a much lower population density than Britain, which reduces the stress of mess.

[Psychonaut]

engage in all forms of sexual activity, litter, defecate, urinate, and do anything else while proclaiming the right to do so because such actions cause no harm others?

This is a proposterous conflation of different issues.

Defecation in public brings with it an immense risk of spread of disease; the harm is immediate and direct.

Urination in public comes with minimal risks of disease, as urine is sterile. However, it is preferable that people not urinate on the streets.

Where there are no public facilities, however, then we cannot even begin to complain about people engaging in the above behaviour (unless perhaps you want to make human size pooper scoopers?).

Preferably there should be plentiful public facilities, and I should imagine that the provision of such facilities, rather than the provision of officers ready to punish those who trasngress, would be the best solution.

Regarding the litter, there is again a direct and demonstrable harm, but to a much lesser degree.

With sexual intercourse there is no demonstrable harm.

You conflate these issues, and you draw analogies between them, and I again ask that you provide any notion of how they are comparable beyond their being public acts.

So far as I can tell your continued conflation is nothing more than a wilful debasing of the issues for the purpose of justifying your own personal preferences standing as public law.

[tbieter]

Tom,

On a related topic, how do you feel about breastfeeding in public?

Tom: LOL How timely. I have no problem with breastfeeding in dog parks.

For a funny incident about me and breastfeeding, go to my blog below. Scroll down to Sat., Sept. 13 "The Perfectibility of Man. You will see photos of a women and child. The incident is related below the photos.

Seriously, I have no problem with breastfeeding in public (when I notice it ) People who object sexualize the act. I don't. Nor do I try to analyze the act, or think that it should be the subject of the law.

A mother breastfeeding her child is a profoundly beautiful, human act. Rather than philosophizing about it, I simply have reverence for the act and the actors.

Tom

[tbieter]

Worshipping extreme individualism and the harm principle and discouraging self-restraint in public and traditional conventions have adverse consequences, including the probability of severe laws becoming necessary if licence begins to rule. Edmund Burke is instructive on the issue of internal versus external constraints. http://www.bartleby.com/73/1051.html

engage in all forms of sexual activity, litter, defecate, urinate, and do anything else while proclaiming the right to do so because such actions cause no harm others?

This is a proposterous conflation of different issues.

Defecation in public brings with it an immense risk of spread of disease; the harm is immediate and direct.

Urination in public comes with minimal risks of disease, as urine is sterile. However, it is preferable that people not urinate on the streets.

Where there are no public facilities, however, then we cannot even begin to complain about people engaging in the above behaviour (unless perhaps you want to make human size pooper scoopers?).

Preferably there should be plentiful public facilities, and I should imagine that the provision of such facilities, rather than the provision of officers ready to punish those who trasngress, would be the best solution.

Regarding the litter, there is again a direct and demonstrable harm, but to a much lesser degree.

With sexual intercourse there is no demonstrable harm.

You conflate these issues, and you draw analogies between them, and I again ask that you provide any notion of how they are comparable beyond their being public acts.

So far as I can tell your continued conflation is nothing more than a wilful debasing of the issues for the purpose of justifying your own personal preferences standing as public law.

[tbieter]

Richard: Some people have a perfectly reasonable and understandable urge to get very demonstrative in public.

Tom: I SUSPECT THAT A MORE FREQUENT RESULT WILL BE MASTURBATION IN PUBLIC.

Richard: An objection to this approach would be that it might not work. There might be too much public sex, and too much litter. There would indeed be no certainty in advance about the outcome. But there would at least be fewer laws, and fewer distractions for the police from really serious matters (EMPHASIS MINE)

Tom: WHEN PUBLIC MASTURBATION BECOMES A CIVIL LIBERTY AND A CONVENTION, A SEVERE LAW WILL BECOME NECESSARY IF THE PUBLIC MOOD CHANGES.

AN ANECDOTE:

A FEW YEARS AGO, MY EX-WIFE INVITED ME TO FLY TO CALIFORNIA AND THEN DRIVE BACK WITH HER TO DULUTH. EN ROUTE, WHEN I THREW A WRAPPER OUT THE CAR WINDOW, SHE JUMPED ON ME AND SAID THAT THE FINE FOR LITTERING IN CAL. WAS $1000!

IN MINNESOTA, LITTERING IS A PETTY MISDEMEANOR. THE CURRENT MAXIMUM FINE IS $300.

Ah, public sex and litter, a challenging comparison. I had not thought of that. And I very much dislike litter, whether in the countryside or in the city, while I admire people who, on noticing other people's litter, pick it up and take it to a dustbin.

I can think of two possible ways of reconciling my views. Others will have to tell me whether either of them succeeds.

1. Litter is different because no-one is deprived of any worthwhile free expression by being forbidden to drop litter. So a law against the dropping of litter, enforced using penalties, is all gain and no loss. Sex is different. Some people have a perfectly reasonable and understandable urge to get very demonstrative in public.

I can see two ways in which this argument might be attacked, and there may well be others.

1(a). Some, including some contemporary artists, might find the dropping of litter a worthwhile expression of themselves or of their art.

1(b) Getting frisky in public might not add any worthwhile self-expression to getting frisky in private.

2. Neither public sex nor littering should be forbidden by law, but everyone who is opposed to either of them should be free to express their disapproval, and to encourage others to express their disapproval. In general, I think it is worth recognising a large region of conduct which is considered to be bad manners, in between the illegal and the generally approved, and not to try to make manners a matter for the law. Perhaps both public sex and littering could fall into that region.

An objection to this approach would be that it might not work. There might be too much public sex, and too much litter. There would indeed be no certainty in advance about the outcome. But there would at least be fewer laws, and fewer distractions for the police from really serious matters.

[bus2bondi]

hi, i was thinking also that it could cause alot of car accidents, causing public harm. Although there are alot of things that could cause a driver to become distracted, i think people having sex everywhere in public would rate as a much higher level of distraction. you'd constantly be in a state of trying not to look, or looking, in a way that's much different than the casual unconscious passing by a billboard sign.

[Richard Baron]

WHEN PUBLIC MASTURBATION BECOMES A CIVIL LIBERTY AND A CONVENTION, A SEVERE LAW WILL BECOME NECESSARY IF THE PUBLIC MOOD CHANGES.

That is true. But the mood could also change against what is now accepted public conduct, and severe laws might be the consequence. Are we sure that Taliban-type attitudes, possibly in the minds of fundamentalists of other religions, will never gain the upper hand?

You could of course respond that it is more likely that attitudes will revert to what they are now than that they would swing to something much more repressive than now. I cannot tell the balance of probabilities, and would hesitate even to guess. If someone had raised the same concern about homosexuality when it was legalised in Britain, in 1967, it would have been tempting to say that the concern had substance, but I cannot now see attitudes to homosexuality going back to where they were then.

IN MINNESOTA, LITTERING IS A PETTY MISDEMEANOR. THE CURRENT MAXIMUM FINE IS $300.

$300 still seems like enough to deter litterers, so long as there is a non-trivial probability of being caught. If you are in a motor car, the probability should be increased because a police officer could note your car's number. I hope that you checked the statute of limitations before making this public confession of wrong-doing.

i was thinking also that it could cause alot of car accidents

Yes, people might have to find places away from busy roads. But there are other activities, currently legal if done where they will not distract drivers, to which the same would apply. I have not checked the law, but I suspect that I would get into trouble for waving large flags made of aluminium foil in bright sunlight near a busy road.

[bus2bondi]

i see your point, but what if they came rolling out of the bushes and tripped someone on the jogging/bike path? would this be a form of negligence or similar to human intoxication? i suppose a tinfoil sign could roll out of a bush on a windy day, but does not have a mind to think after its master has left it, so would there then be a form of sexual negligence to arise?:), although writing this in good humor, still wonder if such a law might very well form? the "sexual negligence law"?

[Richard Baron]

i see your point, but what if they came rolling out of the bushes and tripped someone on the jogging/bike path? would this be a form of negligence or similar to human intoxication? i suppose a tinfoil sign could roll out of a bush on a windy day, but does not have a mind to think after its master has left it, so would there then be a form of sexual negligence to arise?:), although writing this in good humor, still wonder if such a law might very well form? the "sexual negligence law"?

I think that we could deal with this under the general law of negligence. One can do all sorts of things carelessly and harm others, when a little more care would have avoided the harm. But we could see several cases before the courts, because in the heat of passion one can be less aware of one's surroundings than one normally is. I also foresee some entertaining cases around, for example, the principle of res ipsa loquitur (having sex in those circumstances just had to be negligent ...).

[bus2bondi]

hi, good point, i looked up res ipsa loquitur & found its source case very remniscent of the rolling out of the bushes example, lol, although it being a barrel of flour rolling/falling out of window:

"The principle of res ipsa loquitur was first put forward by Baron Pollock in Byrne v. Boadle, 159 Eng.Rep. 299, an 1863 English case. Byrne was struck by a barrel of flour falling from a second-story window. The court's presumption was that a barrel of flour falling out of a second-story window is itself sufficient evidence of negligence:"

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur)

some of the future cases would be interesting i'm sure , & still feel that if sex being similar to intoxication could be proven, then sex at high levels in public would probably be outlawed

[Psychonaut]

Tom,

I am all for constraints on individual actions insofar as they cause harm to other people.

You, on the other hand, advocate constraints on individual actions insofar as they cause offence to you and only you.

Your notions are not a matter of practicality, as they are not practically coherent, and incoherent laws tend to be widely disregarded.

In fact, if you want to make changes to society I suggest you should make your appeals to the populace, not the lawmakers.

Dogging (public sex acts) are widely popular in Britain, and police enforcement is a mere inconvenience.

If you want people to refrain from something, encourage guilt in them. If you want people to refrain from also being sheep, have it be that you encourage guilt in them by encouraging them to think.

You fear the results of public licence; that people will lose the ability to distinguish right and wrong. Well, quite the contrary, you fear that people will stop agreeing with you over what is right and wrong.

There is nothing that an unreasonable mind fears more than the employment of reason.

Further, I put it to you that, as I said before, it is not even the constraint on offence which you desire, but a constraint on offending you, in the individual.

You would not extend laws to the public display of breasts, but to many this is an offensive act of public sexuality.

You have yet to make an argument for the demonstrable harm of public sexual acts.

I also assure you that, much as you fear everyone whacking off around you, most people are self-consciouss enough to avoid it.

I should also point out that any potential mess, such as if someone ejaculated onto someone else, would still obviously be breaking numerous laws regarding littering and sexual assault.

[bus2bondi]

hi, i've been struggling with this topic, because sometimes i think it should be legal, & sometimes i think it shouldn't be. and usually think it should be legal due to the fact that one persons values shouldn't be forced upon another person's. but then it struck me that, if legalizing public sex is in a way an example of stopping people from enforcing their own values upon others, it falls short, because turning it around, it also shoves their values in the face of those who don't believe in it also. so what should a lawmaker do in this, because its like a 'catch 22' with no fair answer for everyone involved. either way, one groups values will be forced upon the others. its a very tough question to answer if ya ask me, & personally i cannot come to any real conclusion about it, can anyone else?

[Psychonaut]

IMO it does not shove anyone's views on anyone else to have public sex acts.

I find pink and yellow to be garish colours, and find it unpleasant to see anyone wearing too much of either. This gives me no right to demand that it be banned.

Essentially, such laws on imposition are a reductio absurdum.

If we take the principle that justifies them (that public offence not be caused) and extend them to cover all instances of public offence then they fall flat on their face and are unworkable.

It is impossible to coherently hold such a law.

Further, the viewing of a naked body may offend someone's values, but this is in regard to someone else's body.

Meanwhile, having your body forcibly clothed is not an offence of your values, it is the destruction of them and the destruction of your sovereignty over your own body.

Perhaps those who wish to force everyone to be permanently clothed could obtain some sympathy by being stripped naked and banned from clothes for a while; forcing clothes on other people is the same damn thing as forcing nudity.

[tbieter]

Hi Psychonaut,

You are wrong in assuming that I favor the passage of a law that prohibits a public act that offends me. I don't. I agree with Burke. I favor the individual making moral judgments, and exercising self-restraint to promote public decency. http://www.bartleby.com/73/1051.html

What I don't understand is a person's desire to have sex in public? What are the possible motivations for such? Is it just exhibitionism, "a mental condition characterized by the compulsion to display one's genitals indecently in public"? The Oxford Modern English Dictionary

Psychonaut: "Dogging (public sex acts) are widely popular in Britain, and police enforcement is a mere inconvenience."

Tom: What is your evidence that supports this statement? Does the statement include masturbation? ( Psychonaut: "I also assure you that, much as you fear everyone whacking off around you, most people are self-consciouss enough to avoid it.") (What does this mean - a moral residue?)

Finally, why do people want the legal right to offend others? It seems to me that one sense of civility suggests that just the opposite behavour is appropriate in public?

Tom

Tom,

I am all for constraints on individual actions insofar as they cause harm to other people.

You, on the other hand, advocate constraints on individual actions insofar as they cause offence to you and only you.

Your notions are not a matter of practicality, as they are not practically coherent, and incoherent laws tend to be widely disregarded.

In fact, if you want to make changes to society I suggest you should make your appeals to the populace, not the lawmakers.

Dogging (public sex acts) are widely popular in Britain, and police enforcement is a mere inconvenience.

If you want people to refrain from something, encourage guilt in them. If you want people to refrain from also being sheep, have it be that you encourage guilt in them by encouraging them to think.

You fear the results of public licence; that people will lose the ability to distinguish right and wrong. Well, quite the contrary, you fear that people will stop agreeing with you over what is right and wrong.

There is nothing that an unreasonable mind fears more than the employment of reason.

Further, I put it to you that, as I said before, it is not even the constraint on offence which you desire, but a constraint on offending you, in the individual.

You would not extend laws to the public display of breasts, but to many this is an offensive act of public sexuality.

You have yet to make an argument for the demonstrable harm of public sexual acts.

I also assure you that, much as you fear everyone whacking off around you, most people are self-consciouss enough to avoid it.

I should also point out that any potential mess, such as if someone ejaculated onto someone else, would still obviously be breaking numerous laws regarding littering and sexual assault.

[Richard Baron]

Hi Psychonaut,
What I don't understand is a person's desire to have sex in public? What are the possible motivations for such? Is it just exhibitionism, "a mental condition characterized by the compulsion to display one's genitals indecently in public"? The Oxford Modern English Dictionary

Perhaps it is that, or perhaps there is a feeling that such a public demonstration of love (or of lust) is in some way especially life-affirming, or perhaps it is something else.

But just suppose for a moment that it is pure exhibitionism. I think that we would still have to ask whether that was a trait, against the expression of which we should legislate. Some, perhaps a substantial majority, might regard it as a trait unworthy of an adult, rational human being. But even if that were so, should we legislate?