I guess you're saying that, in the libertarian world, there is no law against flashing. Correct?
I've told you several times that I'm not a libertarian. There would be a law against flashing. As tpaine wrote in post 255: "Paulsen, when you wag your willy in some innocent young girls face on the subway, - you have not only harmed her, -- you have 'breached the peace'.
I could see a jury fining you heavily in order to "cope with" your behavior, and to compensate your victim."
The offended person would have to go in front of a jury to prove actual "harm", and request some type of compensation?
I already answered that in post 151. Read it again:
Offense: guy flashes a girl.
Before an impartial jury nine out of ten juries would find the flasher guilty if it was public flashing. Though the monetary restitution would likely be small. The next step is to go to criminal court, if the victim chose to press charges which is highly likely. With the civil court finding guilty, again with an impartial jury nine out of ten juries would find the flasher guilty.
Juxtaposition:
Offense: person ingests drugs in privacy of their own home.
Before an impartial jury nine out of ten juries would find the home-drug-user not guilty of harming you by his act of ingesting drugs in his home. The next step is to go to criminal court, if the victim chose to press charges which is highly unlikely. Having lost in civil court, in the odd event that you pressed charges in criminal court, with an impartial jury nine out of ten juries would find the home-drug-user not guilty.
Well, in that case, I don't think either one of us could prove we were actually harmed. Which was the point of my example -- is this the kind of society in which we wish to live?
So you think that there is no harm or threat of harm done by the guy flashing the girl? Now hear this: Robert Paulsen thinks there is no harm in flashing!
Let's get past you and flashing. Here's what Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) has learned from community leaders.
"LEAP presents to civic, professional, educational, and religious organizations, as well as at public forums but we target civic groups; Chambers of Commerce, Rotaries, Lions and Kiwanis Clubs, etc. The people in these organizations are conservative folks who mostly agree with the drug-warriors that we must continue the war on drugs at any cost. They are also very solid members of their communities; people who belong to civic organizations because they want the best for their locales. Every one of them will be voting in every election. Many are policy-makers and if they are not, they are the people who can pull the coat tails of policy-makers and say, "We have someone you must hear talk about drug policy."
?After making more than nine hundred presentations where LEAP calls for the government to "end prohibition and legalize all drugs‹legalize them so we can control and regulate them and keep them out of the hands of our children," we have discovered that the vast majority of participants in those audiences agree with us. Even more amazing is that we are now attending national and international law-enforcement conventions where we keep track of all those we speak with at our exhibit booth; After we talk with them, 6% want to continue the war on drugs, 14% are undecided, and 80% agree with LEAP that we must end drug prohibition. The most interesting thing about this statistic is that only a small number of that 80% realized any others in law enforcement felt the same." LEAP
Police officers know that their job is to keep the peace. ...To protect people from one another. They know they cannot stop people from harming themselves.
Why? I thought something is illegal only if it harms someone through force or fraud. If the individual has to prove in a court of law they were harmed, well, we don't even know a crime has been committed!
If it's on the books as an illegal activity, then why doesn't the state bring a criminal case against the individual?
Lastly, how does this individual go about proving harm? Just on her say-so? I'm on the jury -- please tell me how she was actually harmed. Offended, insulted, shocked, sure. I agree she could be any of these. How was she harmed through force or fraud? Why will no one answer this question?
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. She was not "harmed". The answer is that in the libertarian utopia, flashing is not illegal. Annoying, at best.
You're not a libertarian? Then perhaps you're not the person to be addressing my question, since you seem to know nothing about this libertarian concept of "harm".