June 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad

« Peter Berger's Achievement in Social Science | Main | Conspiracy Theory Socialism »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This video is sad.

It looked as if you (and the Judge) and Coasby were speaking different languages. Coasby just did not seem to understand libertarian concerns.

I wonder how we can solve this problem.

Well, educate your people better, so that they can understand basic logical problems. That'd be a start, imo. I also think, you should challenge them on the existence of said "negative-fallout".

Wouldn't it be equally right, that if you ban those shops that people would get the satisfaction by some other illegal means?

And a third one, I think what this idiot wants to say is: The difference between watching it at home and watching it in a strip club is that you have a wife at home that can then satisfy the arousal, which is kind of a sexist argument.

Nice! Coasby ran with the only argument he had. Steve made the really vital point that the facts are not on Coasby's side. Well done.

Interesting. Steve, I think you got off on a bad foot by categorically attacking "secondary effects" and pushing the "where do you draw the line" challenge. He crushed you on this when he brought up child porn. Suddenly you were invoking secondary effects and drawing lines, if only implicitly.

This is an example of how reasoning from categorical claims, as opposed to by-and-large claims and presumptions, fails to make the best case for liberalism.

The ending was more effective.

Better would be to have been to talk about why we should have a strong presumption against "secondary effects" rationales for restrictions, without a categorical rejection. Then talk about why we should have that presumption: "Secondary effects" are very hard to know and establish and are easily politicized and hijacked, etc. The knowledge problem. We need to focus on first effects: Preventing rape, etc., for example by refocusing resources away from the drug war etc. Except perhaps in extreme cases (where the burden of proof is met and we practically come to see a "secondary effect" as a first effect), government should not try to rule over "secondary effects." Let civil society cope with "secondary effects." That is what it means to favor liberty. Do you favor a presumption of liberty, Mr. Cosby?

And then use the facts (nice job there) on saying that the restrictions on strip joints don't begin to overcome the burden of proof.

This is all Smithianism vs. Rothbard/Kirznerism. It's why I'm making a stink. Liberals can do better.

I was only able to take the first ten minutes or so of this video; I have very limited patience with screaming matches and constant interruptions.

Frankly, I think both Napolitano and Horwitz bombed. Instead of sticking to the actual question to be discussed -- that of a state government passing what in effect is a statewide zoning law -- both N. and H. changed the subject to Congress (the First Amendment) and privacy rights in the home. In effect, they punted on the issue they should have been discussing -- community zoning rights -- in favor of attacking straw men.

Perhaps if sex shops were to open on both sides of Messrs. Napolitano and Horwitz's private residences their next foray into this topic would display more common sense and empathy. Classical liberals should be defending the right of local communities to enact non-confiscatory zoning restrictions. I don't think it's wise for states to preempt local communities in this matter, but at the same time, the national government has no business butting in, short of preventing outright censorship.

I think there was some talking past each other. For one thing, the way Coasby began talking about secondary effects - mentioning "blight" for example - implied that it was the PUBLIC nature of the sex businesses that he thought made it ok to ban. The secondary effects arguably come from having open, public sex businesses not from allowing people to think about sex or look at sexy stuff in their own homes. This point was never really addressed.

But he also missed your point (and the Judge's). And at the end I was reminded of this Onion video:

Oh - but he DID NOT get you on the child porn thing. That would be allowing a non-consensual act of sex or abuse (e.g., disrobing a child) to occur--whether it was taped or not. Taping the crime may cause secondary effects as well, but this is because it is a crime. It in no way implies that taping a consensual act would have negative secondary effects.

I would have simply said: "since when is an entire state a community?"

Richard Shulman (above) has it right. There's a difference between states' ability to zone their own domains and the role of the federal government. Communities are free to specify their own culture.

More importantly, the issue of what zones of life are deemed sexual or not is legitimate to recognize. Sex club activity has power. Freedom is not about being in other peoples' faces under the guise of free speech.

The Founders made it clear that freedom implies personal moral responsibility for ourselves, and our effects upon others. I find the libertarian perspective of freedom without acknowledging consequences to others to be childish. Living with one another in society isn't just commerce.

There's good article on American Thinker on a related subject

A friend suggested a good way you could respond to a social conservative basing his argumentation on the wisdom of American courts. You could just remind him of Roe v. Wade.

For some reason the FOX news player doesn't work on my PC. Maybe it only works in the states.

I don't know that "communities" have "rights," as that sounds like it's preempting the rights of the individual. However, I think if people come together and everyone agrees to certain rules of conduct--or agree to form a democratic system so that those rules can be adjusted as needed--then that is a legitimate contract (assuming there is freedom to exit the community). But the national level or even state level are too broad for making these types of decisions. Community rules should be subject to competition from surrounding communities so people can move to another community if they don't like the rules where they are.

Douglass' book on JFK useless? I agree with your initial premise, but your labeling of "conspiracy theory" can be just as dangerous.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books