South Carolina Ping
Add me to the list. | Remove me from the list.
Posted on 03/27/2008 10:15:15 AM PDT by kingattax
Kissing booths will continue to be legal, as long as there’s six feet between the kisser and the kissee.
They would be foolish to do so, and the public would likely vote them out of office and replace them with people that represented them better.
However, I don't see there being a constitutional right to kissing booths or lap dances. States do have the authority to pass a lot of stupid laws.
If the legislature uses their authority to pass stupid laws that the public opposes, they should vote them out of office, or perhaps change those laws by means of a ballot issue if that is an option in that state.
How in the world are you supposed to stick a dollar bill in her garter from six feet away without your name being Reed Richards?
I think this is riduclous. The best idea should be lets outlaw strip clubs. If they are legal they need to make prostitution legal as well. We all know what goes goes on in those places lets not be hypocritical.
We have a war on terror and we are wasting our time on vice issues.
Heck if want to stop it tax it. that’ll put a damper on it.
If politicians weren’t whoring it up, doing coke on camera in hotel rooms and collecting payoffs, perhaps the public could respect the decision of legilators to push for moral crimes.
So is it your position that the state may legitimately regulate any aspect of your life, unless it directly contradicts one of the Bill of Rights?
For example, do you think the state can legitimately restrict the kinds of bread I may eat, the shirt colors I may wear, the prices I may pay for any commodity, what condiments I must provide in my restaurant, how many hours of exercise I get per week, the manner in which I brush my teeth, how many hours of television I watch, and how often I call my mother?
In other words, is the scope of my individual liberty really limited to just the rights protected in the Bill of Rights, with everything else open to government control?
“I don’t have to. Its simply a standard the state will either pass in its support of or deny in its deafeat of. You, lik anther poster, are getting emotioal about it suposing it is the state meddling with your good time”
There is no emotion in this at all.. I am just asking the question.
Strip clubs are a interesting topic to me. I once worked as a part time officer to a town of about 60,000 folks.. in it was a single strip club. We use to have to go there once a month to verify the license of the place.. then we had to verify the dancers identies.. Most of the girls were friendly.. and just trying to make a buck.. they could not care one Iota about the patrons.
Crime around the place? In two years.. there was one accident in the parking lot.. Then one night a drunk walked out of the bar and somehow managed to run himself over by falling out of his jeep after the bar cutt off him off.
Oh yeah.. there was the “protest’ by a church group outside of the place.. But it ended when the club offered to pay for the groups dinner in the afternoon.. The placed served great steak or fried chicken dinners..
Bergthold:
“Our focus is not on the moral decay in America,” says Scott Bergthold, executive director of NFLF, “but rather the tangible effects of the moral decay which local governments are quick to recognize an increase in crimes, lower property values leading to lower tax revenues, and health and safety issues like the spread of aids and other sexually transmitted diseases.”
South Carolina Ping
Add me to the list. | Remove me from the list.
Freedom to bare more than arms?
What DONT they regulate right now? You seem to have a very narrow definition or understanding of what regulation is. For example, do you think the state can legitimately restrict the kinds of bread I may eat
They do...
...the shirt colors I may wear
Ask some kids at some schools...
...the prices I may pay for any commodity
Are there not some still giver price supports for that purpose?
...what condiments I must provide in my restaurant
I would not doubt it in some states.
...how many hours of exercise I get per week
It's coming.(please read the whole post)
...the manner in which I brush my teeth
Thats a bit of a stretch, but they may command that we brush them to save money on socialized dental (LOL!)
...how many hours of television I watch
Why not? After all they make you license the thing in the UK and many here think (wrongly) that this is okay...why not see it as a tax fund stream? So much for each hour. It self regulates after a while and certain amount.
...and how often I call my mother?
Nah...I am sure they will let mothers regulate that as they are a far superior Nag than the government ever will be.
In other words, is the scope of my individual liberty really limited to just the rights protected in the Bill of Rights, with everything else open to government control?
I am glad you will read this. I NEVER said nor do I ever support government interfering with anything that is HARMLESS. I DO , however, see that some forms of entertainment and or activity can be harmful or at least be directed underground by way of regulation because of the greater message it sends to the society at large.
Your daughter comes home. Sweet, young innocent and asks you "Daddy...What is a Lap Dance? Some of the Boys at school want me to give them one." In that one moment of pain you have to honestly assess whether or not such a public allowance for this activity is good or harmful. Did we teach boys that your daughter is to be respected or be an object? Did we teach your daughter that she is of great worth and should look for a mate who will see only her or that sex and other activity surrounding it is simply okay between consenting adults? Do mince words here...your daughters or sons health, welfare, mental adjustment towards the opposite sex are ALL ON THE LINE. And if by chance this one activity can be sufficiently held away from them so as to allow time for that young person to mature and be protected to a point of adulthood where they view on such things is not shattered by something that happened when young then society has done its job and you as a parent will be relieved beyond words that she did not get violated along the way.
All too often we overlook theses things and demand our "rights" and do so because we see nothing wrong. In my opinion, and its just mine though I am sure others share it, we need to really take a second look at what we approve in the public square...because everything is riding on it.
I know all about the various ways the government intrudes into our personal lives these days. In fact, if you look around a bit you may find me whining about it on other threads. My question to you wasn't whether governments CAN regulate all of those things (obviously they have the raw power to do so), but whether those things were within the LEGITIMATE purview of governments.
I NEVER said nor do I ever support government interfering with anything that is HARMLESS. I DO , however, see that some forms of entertainment and or activity can be harmful or at least be directed underground by way of regulation because of the greater message it sends to the society at large.
A fair distinction, but the trouble then becomes: how harmful is too harmful? After all, no man is a moral island. Every action we take is going to have some consequence on others. A man's decision to spend my weekends golfing instead of with his family is going to have an effect on how his kids are raised. My desire to get a tattoo or an outrageous haircut is going to send a message that a lot of people don't like. (Or from the other side, my decision to drive a luxury vehicle or to hunt animals sends a bad message). Where, and how, do we draw the line regarding harm?
Your daughter comes home. Sweet, young innocent and asks you "Daddy...What is a Lap Dance? ... your daughters or sons health, welfare, mental adjustment towards the opposite sex are ALL ON THE LINE.
Wait a minute...weren't you just chastising someone upthread for emotionalizing the issue? :)
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view) I don't have a daughter, so I can't give you an honest answer to your question. I've been told that having kids changes everything, so maybe this makes my opinion on the issue worthless.
I don't think we have to choose between having our daughters turn into strippers or banning lap dances entirely. There are a lot of things we wouldn't want people to do, but that we still allow in a free society. I wouldn't want any of my family members to lay off thousands of workers to boost a company's earning statement. I wouldn't like the idea of my nephew becoming a boxer or a professional hockey player, being pummeled for the amusement of tv viewers. But I don't think we have to prohibit those things, and open the door to government regulation over every aspect of our lives, in order to protect our families.
My question to you wasn't whether governments CAN regulate all of those things (obviously they have the raw power to do so), but whether those things were within the LEGITIMATE purview of governments.
I would imagine you can look at evidence from the founding of the nation to now and see how the founders viewed what could be “regulated” and hat could not in the context of what they saw as good for society and what is bad. For instance…in the long past some things allowed today would not have been allowed then because of the bad influence and societal ills it would bring or cause. What has changed? Nothing more than people demanding that the standard be changed to reflect their world view. I am not making a case to say all of those changes were good or bad but that as we continuously wrestle with these types of issues we will always see some things differently as you apparently do late in your post when you speak of not having kids and what it does to people.
A fair distinction, but the trouble then becomes: how harmful is too harmful? After all, no man is a moral island. Every action we take is going to have some consequence on others. A man's decision to spend my weekends golfing instead of with his family is going to have an effect on how his kids are raised. My desire to get a tattoo or an outrageous haircut is going to send a message that a lot of people don't like. (Or from the other side, my decision to drive a luxury vehicle or to hunt animals sends a bad message). Where, and how, do we draw the line regarding harm?
…and that brings us here.
Wait a minute...weren't you just chastising someone upthread for emotionalizing the issue? :)
Indeed I did. I stand, sit and reply corrected. However…take the descriptors of the situation away and you are left with a societal issue that can be legitimately brought up. What is often blown past in such conversation is the down-line effect. People set up circumstances that seem to include them alone in their desire to have a right or exercise what they perceive is a right. Rights that therefore have to be protected by the government. The failure to see that the people involved (them and the night club or strip club folks) have an effect on others, their sons and daughters, mystifies me and others. It seems to be all about them. While it is emotionally inescapable when it comes to kids the situational set up is valid. It is in this vein that I see proper influence by way of government via the peoples desires and this is or will be played out in South Carolina. They can either support it as their standard or not. They can regulate it or not. It is legitimate when ALL that is affected by it is considered.
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view) I don't have a daughter, so I can't give you an honest answer to your question. I've been told that having kids changes everything, so maybe this makes my opinion on the issue worthless.
On the contrary…you have just as much at stake. That you are honest about it sets you apart from the many who simply demand that they have what they want and the rest of us be damned.
I don't think we have to choose between having our daughters turn into strippers or banning lap dances entirely. There are a lot of things we wouldn't want people to do, but that we still allow in a free society. I wouldn't want any of my family members to lay off thousands of workers to boost a company's earning statement. I wouldn't like the idea of my nephew becoming a boxer or a professional hockey player, being pummeled for the amusement of tv viewers. But I don't think we have to prohibit those things, and open the door to government regulation over every aspect of our lives, in order to protect our families.
I feel the same way about smoking. I say go ahead and smoke as it is a LEGAL product…I also say that you are a complete idiot for smoking and helping the government in their double standard on the issue. Smoking is one of those thing that does affect those around so it is a place of legitimate governmental regulation…yet if I own a bar...I placard it as a smoking bar and everyone there smokes I now have to ban it in some states. I say this is wrong. The people are choosing to go there…the owner is choosing to advertise it as such there is nothing hidden in any agenda so I say they are not right for doing it. Others will say that if you make smoking illegal they will be underground like prohibition was and we will create a criminal element. So we are stuck…it seems.
However…this is not about smoking. If someone wanted to go into a enclosed building and see a woman take off her clothes and she is doing so willingly and he is getting a lap dance before and or after libertarians and liberals will all say that its consensual, no one is getting hurt and no one who doesn’t want to see it is affected. Oh really? You really going to tell me that it all stays there? That the man getting the service does not walk away with a view of women that is NEVER played out outside of that hall or building? That the woman is not affected either physically (as many do because they are labeled as easy and recognized outside the work environment) or affected emotionally? The environment is a cesspool for the absolute wrong approach to relationships and world view of the opposite sex. That can bee seen as a societal issue where the people get involved and through the instruments of their government regulate it or even ban it. If a Judge, then an appellant judge then a set of Supreme Court judges have to look at it and come out with a judgment one way or the other I will have to either support it wholeheartedly or grudgingly.
Again, I really appreciate your post.
Thank you as well. I've gotten a lot more straight-forward answers from you than from many other people with whom I've discussed this issue.
I think we both acknowledge each other's concerns. I appreciate that stripping (and a whole host of other activities) can have negative effects that go beyond the activity itself and the people directly participating in it. And it seems like you acknowledge that if we use the state to control those "spill-over" effects, we leave ourselves vulnerable to a lot of burdensome and intrusive state regulation.
I guess where we really disagree is on how we calculate the danger of each alternative. I see extensive state regulation as the bigger problem. There are a lot of things one can do to protect their families from the unseemly aspects of society without having the government ban things. But what can one do to protect their liberty once the state has assumed the power to control anything that has negative consequences on others?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.