posted
Alright you fall down comedians:) I wrote and got published a letter to the editor of my state's big newspaper(that's not saying much) on this topic, shame I can't post it now. My ideas are like this, Yeah clothes have their place, to protect you or keep you warm. Beyond that, let's be logical here folks, if people want to wear clothes to look a certain way, there's nothing stopping them, otherwise face it it's nunya d***** buisness. If people want to make dress codes in private restaurants or homes or private work areas, that's their call, so long as they make them in direct accordance with sexual equality laws. Regardless of whether the law is changed, at this point in time and culture and history, if girls and women suddenly started going around in public topless I think you would in fact most probably see an increase in rapes. Intelligent people regardless of area or culture, will GENERALLY choose to go along with the cultural norms, so long as they do not inhibit, but in no ways does this make it constitutional for there to be laws restricting first ammendment rights.
Posts: 34 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If people want to make dress codes in private restaurants or homes or private work areas, that's their call, so long as they make them in direct accordance with sexual equality laws.
So you're saying that a private person has no right to implement different standards of modesty on their own property?
posted
Which in and of itself is a major problem. If I own it (or hold a limited time estate in the form of a leasehold estate, which counts as ownership of an estate), then who else owns it?
posted
Ownership is not merely a question of possession of deed. Indeed, even in the cases of our most private (land) property, it can be taken from us absent a crime under eminent domain. Eminent domain in some form is pretty much necessary, and reflects that the in some cases the interest of the state in one's property overrides one's own interest in that property.
We even have "property regulations" about what one can do on one's property absent eminent domain -- for instance, one cannot murder on it.
In the case of a highly public place such as a restaurant, the interest of the state is greater, and regulations based on that (limited) interest are justified.
I much prefer this framework as one to understand the law of the state on, as without something along these lines one is required to come up with completely different justifications to explain the difference between, say, laws against murder and laws against not providing handicapped access (or against providing racially biased access) to generally public buildings and establishments.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ownership is a somewhat confused term in these cases. It can be wholly clear who possesses deed to a property. This does not resolve deeper issues of ownership in a public policy/political philosophy sense.
Some illustrations to consider:
On property I own (vis a vis deed), I do not possess the right to kill someone in cold blood.
On property I own (vis a vis deed), in many states the nature of self defense is expanded. That is, I have a greater right to kill someone on property of my own than on property of another's.
Explanation of this difference is significantly complicated by considerations of property that insist on private property being purely personal. It is considerably simplified by considerations of property which see both the individual and the state as having interests which are of varying degrees depending on the nature of the property.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the larger front, your concept of ownership is flawed. Onwership has never been taken to mean one can do anything one wants on ones property. By your definition, any regulations that limit ones rights to use their land would consitute a taking requiring just compensation.
The police power is separate from the ownership right. The mistake you're making is in conflating all interests with ownership interests.
posted
I'm somewhat split on that issue; in the case of "beachfront", I think the state's interests (for many sound historical reasons) are considerably strengthened, but I'm not certain they're strengthened in respect to personal clothing.
Assuming the owner of the bar owned the property (not merely leasing it from the government), I think it likely he could set his own standards of toplessness between men and women; his interests in seeing a lack of disruption would override the state's interests in eliminating a minor difference in dress by gender in a private establishment. Note that I also think the bar owner could allow both to be topless, and that the state would not have the authority to ban that in this instance.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Explanation of this difference is significantly complicated by considerations of property that insist on private property being purely personal. It is considerably simplified by considerations of property which see both the individual and the state as having interests which are of varying degrees depending on the nature of the property.
Actually, you complicate the nature of ownership when you confuse onwership interests with other interests. The power of emminent domain doesn't demonstrate a reduction in ownership rights - it is a transfer of ownership. If the interests weren't different, it would not be necessary.
Onwerhsip contains a certain bundle of rights: the right to exclude others, the right of entry and possession, the right to transfer via deed, will, or intestacy, and others. Emminent domain represents a full transfer of those rights. Regulation does not. Criminal jurisdiction does not.
If you conflate the power to enforce the criminal code with property ownership, you combine two very distinct and different things into an ill-fitting whole.
The true classification is a hierarchy:
Types of interests >>>> Public Interests >>>>>>>> Regulatory >>>>>>>> Criminal >>>> Private Interests >>>>>>>> Personal Freedom from Torts >>>>>>>> Contractual >>>>>>>> Ownership >>>>>>>>>>>> <various types of ownership>
So yes, the state regulatory interest is an interest that competes with ownership. But it's not an ownership interest. The problems you see by separating them only occur with a relatively unsophisticated view of property - one that has been current since the Domesday Book.
quote:On the larger front, your concept of ownership is flawed. Onwership has never been taken to mean one can do anything one wants on ones property. By your definition, any regulations that limit ones rights to use their land would consitute a taking requiring just compensation.
The police power is separate from the ownership right. The mistake you're making is in conflating all interests with ownership interests.
Nope . In fact, you make an excellent point in my favor: ownership has never been taken to mean one can do anything one wants on one's property. What I'm talking about is a way to explain that, otherwise one gets into a huge muddle with differing between what's something the government gets to forbid everywhere and what's something the government can only enforce in some places.
And no, by my definitions regulations that limit one's right to use land would not require compensation. Eminent domain is an application of the principal, not a definition of. Compensation is required because of the complete deprivation of, and because it is also in the state interest to try to be fair (and the inclusion of such a mandated fairness in the Constitution prevents some unfair abuses through eminent domain). Don't add words to my mouth, or as you like to put it, I didn't say that .
This isn't a legal definition of ownership I'm talking about, as I said, this is a public policy/political philosophy definition. Police power can be understood through this conception quite easily.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll wait until you respond to my last post to respond. I agree there's a continuity of interest. What you're missing is that ownership is a branch on that continuity, not an overarching concept.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No it doesn't fit into that hierarchy, because your thesis is that no "generally public restaurant could be wholly considered one person's own property."
To support this, you demonstrate that the state has the right to seize the land under eminent domain or place regulations upon it.
Neither argument makes sense. The right to eminent domain is the right to force a transfer of ownership. The right to regulate is a state police power. You've pretty much made my case by saying "ownership has never been taken to mean one can do anything one wants on one's property."
Exactly. Ownership has never meant that. Therefore, pointing out examples where people can't "do anything one wants on one's property" has no bearing on whether they "truly own" the property.
It's like pointing out that prime numbers aren't prime because all but one of them are odd.
posted
No, no, private ownership is. We're really not disagreeing all that much, mainly we're just using the word ownership differently. I am using the word ownership the way I am for a few reasons:
1) The interests of the state and the interests of the individual in a piece of property are in many ways similar.
2) In philosophy, ownership is often considered as the degree to which something may be appropriated (note: not usually wholly) for own purposes. This fits exactly with how I am using the word.
3) I wish to operate against the use of the word ownership as a rallying point for "its mine so I can do what I want with it". One cannot do whatever one likes with something, even if one owns it. By coopting the word ownership I hope to work against that position.
4) Interest, the word somewhat in vogue for describing things, is an even more loaded word. "State interest" and "private interest" as competing notions is essentially the same, but I feel misses the essentials of the situation; those interests are a motivator for the ownership (in a philosophical sense) the state exercises. The interests of the individual in a piece of property allow him to exercise his ownership in various ways, such as by building a house. The interests of the state in that piece of property allow it to exercise its ______ in various ways, such as by requiring the house be built to certain specifications. I feel the word that best fits there is in many ways ownership, just as it describes the exercise of interests in the case of the private person.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
As I point out in my previous post, in many places other than legal circles ownership has meant exactly that. When people in academics talk about ownership of an idea, they're using my sense of the word. This sort of usage is all over many academic pursuits.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And now, off to class I go, with one last note:
Right now, there is no single word in common parlance to describe the exercise of interest. We have specific instances, such as the exercise of interests by regulation, but as far as a general word, no.
In a philosophical sense, the exercise of interests may be termed ownership; this word of course also has a legal sense, but many words are used in different senses.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, then you need to be more careful in your statements claiming one of my points for your own. If you truly mean "ownership has never been taken to mean one can do anything one wants on one's property," then there's no way pointing out the lack of ability to do whatever one wants can help your case.
If you meant private ownership, then we can simply say that where Dagonee uses "ownership," fugu uses "private ownership." Then we can both be right. Edit: Or you can use "philosphizing ownership." But of course, you're being a tad slippery about that, since I clearly meant legal ownership when I made the claim you initially refuted.)
And my rallying point has never been "its mine so I can do what I want with it" but rather "it's mine, so the government needs to have a good reason for preventing me from doing what I want with it." What I'm working against is ownership not being treated as a right, to be weighed against other rights such the right to wear what you want.
posted
I would say public nudity would NOT increase the amount of rape, but actually lower it.
Here in the USA we are very closed about sexuality compared to other nations. When something isn't taboo, people will try things they normally wouldn't, and most would get it out of thier system. There are some people that get highs of being deviant; or just enjoy that kind of lifestyle.
As for public places of gathering: NO Shoes, NO Shirt, NO Service. (We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.)
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in Virginia they could, if that law Liz posted passes. I bet it would depend on how much the underwear covered.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
that is too funny that you said that. I was thinking about wedgies, and how they would be illegal under this law. Not illegal to do, necessarily, but illegal to be a victime of a wedgie. A lose lose situation, for sure.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. In fact, you make an excellent point in my favor: ownership has never been taken to mean one can do anything one wants on one's property. What I'm talking about is a way to explain that, otherwise one gets into a huge muddle with differing between what's something the government gets to forbid everywhere and what's something the government can only enforce in some places.![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
