Sexuality and the State.
Mr G tore his eyes away from the motor racing for a nanosecond, curiosity overcoming him as I sat hunched over a small book, reading it through Dad’s old magnifying glass. “What are you reading?”
“Erotic Book of the Year, actually.”
“Well, if you can’t read it without a magnifying glass, then you’re too old to experiment.”
Ouch!
It is an assumption that the publisher’s of John Ozimek’s prize winning book on the subtle discrimination and exclusion practised against those who are not young, mainstream, procreating, sexual Gods, are guilty of themselves.
8pt font and shinny white paper? The elderly and the visually challenged have no chance of learning anything new; with the aid of the magnifying glass, which had previously never read anything steamier than the cricket results in The Telegraph, I persevered.
Sex is the universal leveller; virtually every human being indulges in some form of sex at some point in their lives. There is no logical reason for the State to intervene beyond protecting those who are incapable of giving informed consent to sexual activity, by which I mean children, of course, the mentally vulnerable in some cases, and animals. Beyond those protective barriers, the state has no business dictating how our penis or clitoris is stimulated.
Ozimek traces the history of first the intervention of the various religious orders in sanctifying ‘approved sex’, then State intervention, even that of the psychiatric profession, notably Freud, in creating a ‘charmed circle’ of those whose sexual activity was approved. The title of the book ‘Beyond the Circle’ suggests that he seeks to redress the balance in favour of those outside the circle.
However, it is not just the bifocal wearers that find themselves excluded in his work, the disabled get narry a mention. A strange omission in a work which claims to point out the anomalies in the law and the drastic effect they can have on those outside the ‘charmed circle’.
Recent legislation has redressed the balance for those who are Gay, Lesbian, or Transgendered. The State has sought to bring them into the ‘charmed circle’. Rather than outlawing ‘discrimination’ on any grounds, the State has sought to protect various categories of persons who have the right not to be discriminated against.
This still leaves a large number of people who indulge in perfectly harmless activity, that is considered aberrant by the psychiatric profession – fetishism for instance, those lovers of exotic underwear, who can open any newspaper or magazine to discover underwear provocatively displayed in order to increase sales, but whose interest in viewing such images is listed, along with paedophilia, and necrophilia in DSM-IV-TR, the American diagnostic bible of mental illness.
Recent legislation against the possession of ‘extreme pornographic images’ has outlawed the possession of images, not only the oft quoted images of children, for which the state is rightly entitled to protect, but also images of sexual practices which are not of themselves illegal. They are, to hark back to the words of the Obscene Publication Act, likely ‘to deprave or corrupt’.
At 6pm, your young children and your aged granny can gather companionably around the television to watch images of perfectly healthy young men being blasted to smithereens, you are able to gaze at the blood stains left behind, should those young men be of another nationality, you are even subtly encouraged to raise a cheer, this apparently does not tend to deprave or corrupt. You may not, in the privacy of your own homes, gaze upon images of some acts performed between consenting adults.
Not even, as the State seems to forget, if you are of that class of person who gains sexual stimulation from such an act, but is physically unable to partake in person, either through age or disability.
Why should it be any business of the state?
In 1990, the ‘snigger case’ of the law student’s studies was decided. From memory, it involved four young men who had chosen to nail each others nipples to a bread board. They were all consenting adults. Had they chosen to punch each others teeth down the back of their throats, they could have charged an admission fee; parliament has never declared boxing illegal.
The full majesty of the law was brought to bear upon them and the High court duly intoned the limits to which one can legally ‘enjoy’ pain during sexual activity. It must be ‘fleeting and transitory’, you can’t have too much of a good thing……
There is a more serious side to this debate, for with the advent of Criminal Records checks which apply to an astounding 40% of jobs in the UK, an ever increasing number of people will find themselves barred from employment, not just for criminal convictions for paedophilia, with which no one can complain, but because of the hearsay or ‘gossip’ element of the record keeping, a quiet whisper that perhaps they enjoy nailing their nipple to granny’s bread board in their free time, will be sufficient to ensure that they are not considered ‘suitable’ for employment in a wide range of careers.
The advent of the Human Rights Act, and the general thrust of our legislation these days, is to create victims, classes that are protected from discrimination. True equality demands that everyone is protected from discrimination for legal activities.
CAAN, the Consenting Adult Action Network, who has published this book, (available here) is campaigning for just such an outcome. They reject the ‘assimilation’ model, by which vociferous campaigners gain admission to the ‘charmed circle’.
At the moment, if you are, for instance, gay, you are protected from discrimination by a raft of legislation. If you chose to stimulate your clitoris with a plastic rabbit, you are lauded by the ‘Cosmopolitan’ magazine group. If your taste runs to a dead and frozen supermarket rabbit, you may be unemployable. With no protection.
It is a ludicrous anomaly, and none of the State’s business.
*Dons hard hat, and bravely leaves comments on*
July 16, 2010 at 03:35
-
The state should have nothing to do with a person’s sexuality. The best
thing that they can only do is to promote safe sex, birth control and sex
education to educate people hence lessen the number of unwanted pregnancies
and minimize the number of sexually transmitted diseases.
July 10, 2010 at 16:52
-
That an Ancap society is harder to invade because Afghanistan is closer to
one than Iraq is and is apparently harder to conquer.
July 9, 2010 at 07:54
-
“Obo. That is one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard.”
What is?
July 8, 2010 at 23:53
-
@Old Slaughter: “So you just call an argument
- July 8, 2010 at 00:33
-
“
- July 8, 2010 at 08:25
-
James
“Not Ancap = Loves Child Abuse”
Again your didactic reasoning is something to behold.
- July 8, 2010 at 19:49
-
Apologies that you Shallow reading read int that wrongly, but I am
happy t give you a second to apologise.
This response did not once state that not being an Anarcho-Capitalist
mens one loves child abuse, this is patenty absurd. My comment about child
abuse was aimed directly as a user (hence the quotation at the top) who
only a few sections up from this refered me to a mental health
proffesional because I suggested we start treating our children like human
beings.
I understand there is no obligation to read around individual posts,
but I can see no legitimate reason that my direct comment about KingBingos
support of Child Abuse could be taken as a generalisation of
Anarcho-Capitalists. For one thing, most Anarcho-Capitalists came from
healthy backgrounds. Take for example Milton Friedman, prolific statist
who is known to have raised his son David so well that David is not only
extremely healthy, but naturely an AnCap, and I applaud the details of
what I have heard of Miltons parenting.
The same goes for Daniel Macklers teachings, while he is no Libertarian
he encourages people to stop abusing children at every possible
moment.
Indeed, for me to say Not being AnCap means you love child abuse would
be patently absurd, and so I have never said it.
- July 8, 2010 at 00:26
-
@Kingbingo: Heh, accusing your opponent of mental health problems because
he finds your support of child abuse sickening, real mature.
July 8, 2010 at 09:56
-
- July 7, 2010 at 22:03
-
“you make me feel so violently sick.”
Get help, you need it.
http://www.mind.org.uk/help/advice_lines
- July 7, 2010 at 21:46
-
@Kingbingo: Seriously? I understand that I am angry and excitable on the
issue of freedom, but do you real have so little interest in ethics, in
goodness and in being a decent human being that you respond to the idea that
we shouldn’t abuse our children in this horrifically disturbing ways that are
considered “good parenting” by attacking the possibility that I have issues?
Of course I have issues you fool, I have issues with the constant and
widespread childabuse all around me and that people can be so callous as to
shrug it off.
If you have no interest in protecting children, then I have no interest in
you, it’s not even fun to read your petty responses when you make me feel so
violently sick.
- July 7, 2010 at 20:54
-
Obnoxio, great video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj6lRFXC5rA&feature=player_embedded
- July 7, 2010 at 22:09
-
Yes, but it makes exactly the same mistake you make: the assumption the
only way of enforcing property rights is through the state.
Since he agrees with your point of view, I’m not surprised you consider
it a “great video”.
- July 7, 2010 at 22:12
-
In fact, the whole thing is so vague and inconclusive, I’m actually
surprised you consider it a great video.
-
July 7, 2010 at 22:29
-
“the whole thing is so vague and inconclusive”
I take it you choose not to freeze frame on the screen-shots leading
to comprehensive studies then.
Did you read the IEA essay I linked above on the role of law in free
markets?
The bit about the Scottish Boarder is right up your street.
- July 8, 2010 at 17:28
-
No.
- July
7, 2010 at 11:44
-
Obo,
Other than the nature of the utopian state we end up with. What is the
difference between a Marxist ideologue and yourself?
Now the outcomes of a Marxist state versus an AnCap one are no doubt in
your opinion different. My fear however was never that the utopian’s dream
functions rightly or wrongly but the pain and terror required in shifting from
one to the other.
You provide ‘libertarian’ solutions to problems with no real opinion
provided on the transition and the myriad unintended consequences. In short,
to me (an admirer) you seem a little too ideologically based.
This doesn’t
add to the argument above and is merely an observation. It seems that your
default position is to find a solution that fits the ideological definition of
Libertarianism rather than what works. Sometimes these are exclusive, or
separate.
- July 7, 2010 at 13:15
-
Utopian state? I’m afraid that is the ideal of Statism, that the next law
will be the one to fix everything, and yet we always need new laws. There is
one thing Anarcho Capitalists accept about human nature that Statists don’t
really, and that is that there are bad people. And if there are bad people,
the most painful and terrible thing one can have is a State for all those
bad people to go to get unlimited power and freedom from responsibility.
A Marxist Ideologue wants to force people to change to fit their system.
Anarcho-capitalists don’t have a particular “system” in mind, and choose
only to call out immorality wherever and whenever they see it. The reason
the majority are economically rational is because it takes extreme
rationality and a lfie changing jump to move from the Socialism-lite
philosophy of Minarchist to truth and freedom, but Voluntary Mutalism and
Syndalism are all possible “systems” in a purely capitalistic/anarchistic
society.
Therefore the Anarcho-Capitalist does not have an “outcome” for mankind,
they simply wish to stop abusing children as massively as we do, to stop
shooting people to get our way and are fully aware how much better an
Anarchist society obviously would be because of basic human nature. Getting
there takes no pain or terror, infact it means moving away from common state
events like World War 2 which are real pain and terror, toward a society
built by not abusing our children to the point where they don’t accept
Violent structures as necessary against all logic.
This is the transition, live freedom in your own life, and in your
interactions with other people. Continue to not beat your girlfriend and
children, continue to not shoot your boss to get a raise, continue to not
rob your pub when you want a drink; continue living all this anrchism. Then
add to that, treating your children like human beings and not our clay toys,
point out the gun that is the state at all times and improve your social
relationships so that they are all voluntary and meaningful. Libertarianism
might be an idology, filled with Minachists, but Anarchism is Freedom and
Truth.
-
July 7, 2010 at 14:33
-
- July 7, 2010 at 15:09
-
Why the hell would I want to do that? I don’t want to be friendly
with other human beings for the sake of it. I’m talking about not using
violence to shape fucking children, and you’re treating it like a joke.
And I’m not even talking about things you wouldn’t do with other people.
I doubt you go around Screaming at your friends when they don’t do what
you want, but that’s considered godo parenting. If you can’t even treat
kids with some kind of ethics, it’s no wonder you suck off the state gun
like it’s a massive black cock.
-
July 7, 2010 at 18:13
-
“doubt you go around Screaming at your friends when they don
July 7, 2010 at 18:45
-
“infact it means moving away from common state events like World War
2″
Er… so you are now not talking about an AnCap UK, you are talking about
a simultaneous AnCap world. Or else those with the big state will crush
AnCaps until the Ancaps form an army and therefore a state.
This is what I am talking about. The transition. State or individual,
the inherent unrealistic nature of your proposal renders it utopian and
comparable to other ideologues.
-
July 7, 2010 at 20:00
-
“are talking about a simultaneous AnCap world. ”
Reminds me of the Pre war (WWI) idealogical claptrap about a Marxist
world spontaneously springing into existence rendering conflict
obsolete.
Different music but same dance.
- July 7, 2010 at 21:42
-
You can speak all the gibberish you like RogerDodger, it doesn’t have
any effect on objective reality, so state whatever mindless assumptions
you like and gravity will continue to function. As for King Bingo,
there’s no need to point out the absurdity of your desperate cry for
attention, I never mentioned an AnCap world, and responding to that
assumption made by your own positions supprters is patently absurd as a
way of moving anywhere in a discussion.
I’m talking about Freedom, as we live it in our every day lives,
wherever it is at whatever time it is. You don’t go around raping every
women you see, so please stop pretending you ask yourself these “big
questions” about Anarchism in 99% of the areas of your life, it’s just
meaningless and a distraction from the real question.
Secondly, a State != Army. Private armies have, do and will exist,
and to state that they are equal to the existence of a state is untrue.
If this idea is Utopian, an untested proposition, then so was the
abolition of forced marriage and so was the abolition of slavery. But I
still don’t know how that changes the fact that killing, stealing,
raping, kidnapping, threatening and otherwise harming people is
imooral.
- July 7, 2010 at
21:47
-
I would refer you to my comment about the difference in conquering
the highly centralised, statist country of Iraq, versus the highly
decentralised country of Afghanistan, which notionally has a government
that the tribal leaders ignore or support as the mood takes them.
Even the might of Russia couldn’t conquer Afghanistan. The British
Empire never succeeded. Afghanistan isn’t even as decentralised as a
libertarian society would be.
Invading a country is only worth doing if you have to conquer a
relatively small infrastructure to conquer the country. If you had to
fight your way from house to house, you’d have to literally kill every
single person in the country to win your war.
The UK’s natural resources are not that desirable. What is desirable
is the knowledge and ingenuity of the people.
The other thing that you’d have to ask is, who is going to invade us,
if we unilaterally declare anarchy? The French? The Germans?
It’s not worth having if there is a cost like that attached to
it.
-
July 7, 2010 at 22:06
-
“the highly decentralised country of Afghanistan”
Which ended up with the Taliban.
Not something that just looks and feels like a state, something
much worse.
The same could happen in the UK if you abolish ALL government in
its entirety.
- July 7, 2010 at 13:51
-
I guess the main difference is that Marxists believe in “the community”
whereas AnCaps believe in “the individual”. The society that comes out will
reflect that fundamental difference.
But I for one do not believe that a libertarian society will be some sort
of Utopia. Some things will be easier, some things will be harder and there
will be no free beer and skittles. Most people don’t seem to want any kind
of responsibility, so I think some people might not like it.
I’m not sure about “unintended consequences”, though. Unintended
consequences are what come about through statist attempts to direct people’s
behaviour.
- July 7, 2010 at 18:42
-
Agreed, but the will be a transition from state
incentives/disincentives to more natural/market driven ones. There is
enormous upheaval in it that in some cases will not be worth it (IMO).
Those are what I mean by UC.
Perhaps I did not put my case properly, it is simply that it appears
that when confronted by an issue the tendency is to ask ‘what is the AnCap
solution’ rather than ‘what is the best solution’. I believe it is the
amount these two answers are the same leads one to become an involuntary
ideologue.
- July 7, 2010 at 21:49
-
Defintion, Anarcho-Capitalism: Non-aggression.
All things not Anarcho-Capitalism: Aggression.
All solutions not Anarcho-Capiatlist = Aggressive.
Good Solutions = Aggressive?
Ok, the logic didn’t work, in what way are the best solutions ever
not Anarcho-Capitalist ones?
- July 8, 2010 at 06:51
-
So you just call an argument ‘gibberish’ and move on. Ok. If thats
your bag.
State = aggression.
Ancap= non aggression.
Well now. Who is talking fantasy here?
That doesn’t at all sound
like ideological bullshit.
As for Afganistan. If because it has some of the roughest terrain
with the most extended supply lines on the planet it is difficult to
maintain control over. If that is your argument then explain Soviet
Russia. The opposite of AnCap yet er… pretty tricky to invade.
James, there is gibberish on here but look to yourself
first.
Obo. That is one of the weakest arguments I have ever
heard.
- July 7, 2010 at 00:08
-
So essentially you believe it because you want to believe it. Even though
you don’t know how it would work, in a small sample of thought experiments,
let alone deal with criminals or provide for those make bad life choices and
need support. I’m not asking for the product of a life’s work, or a doctorate
standard thesis. But the fact that these things do not exist anywhere must
surely worry you. No one has been able to make a decent case for Anarchy,
Murry Rothband included.
This is your thing. You always run away from explaining how your vision
might work, because you don’t have one. You just know you don’t like the
current state (fair enough) but you conclude from that that all states are
therefore unworkable.
I won’t mind if you could just say that your ideal is no state and you want
to explore how that might be done. But instead you blankly assert that anarchy
is the only option and clam up when asked simple question as to how it could
work.
Conversely, I attempt to provide a full explanation of how my ideal system
might work in a given situation when challenged, the reasons why, examples of
real life or historic precedent, and relevant background work. I’m even happy
to do so again here: http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=book&ID=438
You ask me to explain why its OK for a state to exist and impose taxation
as if it is a self evident tenant of natural justice that such a thing is a
abhorrent. yet I have made clear that as long as such a state is minimal I
have no problem with it, in exchange for the benefits a state can provide
(which I have explained countless times to you). Surely the burden is on you
to explain why this is provably wrong, as oppose just your opinion.
You are essentially in the same position as all Anarchists, unable to make
a case. Perhaps you will be the first? As soon as you can explain a credible
case as how hypothetically how a stateless version of Britain could deal with
a few thought experiments. Perhaps, Rapists, The old and infirm with no family
and no assets, Who would pay for street lighting etc. Then we are one step
closer.
If you could go further and find genuine examples of this working in the
real world or historically, even better.
But I suspect you won’t and you can’t.
I have engaged with many an Anarchist before who start telling me that
rapists would be deterred by having their credit score diminished, but I know
your more than savvy enough to spot bunk when you see it. Which is why you
can’t develop your explanation for an anarchist society, with law, with
justice and property right, with a sophisticated free market; because you know
in your heart its not possible. No matter how much you hate the modern
state.
- July 7, 2010 at 08:19
-
-
July 7, 2010 at 14:14
-
- July 6, 2010 at 22:27
-
“You haven
- July 6, 2010 at 22:09
-
Who decides on the banishment or the killing?
- July 6, 2010 at 22:12
-
It varies from tribe to tribe, but it’s some variation of a chief, a wise
man or a council of elders.
-
July 6, 2010 at 22:21
-
And how would it work in Anarchist Britain?
- July 6, 2010 at 21:20
-
- July 6, 2010 at 21:57
-
Sure: it’s a mutually binding code for living together and not harming
each other.
-
July 6, 2010 at 21:59
-
and when the rapist disagrees about what’s OK?
- July 6, 2010 at
22:02
-
He gets banished from the tribe and if he shows his face again, he
gets killed.
- July 6, 2010 at 21:16
-
“No anarchist proposes a lawless society. They merely propose a society
that does not require a state to enforce that law.”
Explain to me how. Show relevant historical or real world examples.
You shall have my rapt attention.
- July 6, 2010 at 21:57
-
Sure. Most primitive societies enforce law without a state. They do it
because they need to get along and can’t suffer behaviour that hurts members
of the tribe or the tribe as a whole.
They might not call it law, but law it certainly is. And it’s much
simpler law and it has the added advantage of not requiring lawyers.
-
July 6, 2010 at 21:59
-
That a wish, not developed argument.
- July 6, 2010 at
22:01
-
And you say that because…?
You do know that there are still actually tribes out there that
effectively live in the stone age, like the Khoi in Africa?
-
July 6, 2010 at 22:08
-
You haven’t thought this through have you. Respectfully.
- July 6, 2010 at 20:14
-
“However, some people are morons, who go through life making one bad
decision after another.”
How am I misinterpreting this statement? You are clearly saying that these
people are so dumb that they are in need of someone smarter and wiser to
protect them from themselves. You are clearly denying the argument that people
should have personal responsibility for their actions.
“Others are gullible or weak, and unscrupulous people abuse and take
advantage of these people.”
No anarchist proposes a lawless society. They merely propose a society that
does not require a state to enforce that law.
“Which before you start the state did provide prior to the notion of
socialism even existed.”
Primitive societies all provide a safety net to the best of their abilities
and resources. All these societies function without a state. We have more
resources and greater abilities. Why exactly is it that you think because we
have more we will not take care of those in need without someone pointing a
gun at us to make us do it?
- July 6, 2010 at 07:24
-
Bridges can easily be provided by private enterprise, an anarchist society
would be armed anyway and the law we have today in a statist society is not
entirely predictable.
Why do we need the state?
- July 6, 2010 at 07:43
-
Oh, and because an anarchist society has no central power structures to
win over, it’s also much more difficult to conquer and retain control over.
Compare the scattered, independent tribes of Afghanistan with the massive
central power structures of the Ba’ath party in Iraq. Notice how no-one has
ever really conquered Afghanistan, whereas a military victory in Iraq took
hardly any time at all.
- July 6, 2010 at 09:35
-
- July 6, 2010 at 10:13
-
“Because not everyone is as able to take care of themselves as you are.
And jiving for total anarchy because you reason that you personally will
be better off is every bit as selfish as a socialist who wants to 90% tax
rate because his bureaucrat pals will be better off.”
Are you implying that the only reason I believe in anarchy is because I
will be better off?
Because that is complete nonsense. I certainly believe that I will be
better off, but I also believe that especially the very worst off will
have their lives improved the most. The wasteful, arcane and “entrapping”
(I don’t know if this is a valid adjective!) nature of state benefit
provision came out of exactly the kind of thinking you espouse: let the
well-to-do pay their own way and use taxes to fund basic health care and
welfare for the very worst off. This led to an unimaginable,
uncontrollable behemoth of an NHS which has panels deciding which drugs
you’re allowed to have, banning you from further NHS treatment if you do
anything privately, inefficient allocation of resources and monstrous
waste. It led to incomprehensible, misguided welfare strategies that
hugely damage people’s desire to work. This all happened comfortably
within the space of one person’s lifetime.
State provision of ANY kind inevitably leads to the destruction of any
of the market provisions that might offer a better, cheaper service. It
has been shown over and over in this very country, where “friendly mutual
societies”, which used to cater perfectly well for unemployment, were
destroyed because people had to pay tax anyway, so why would they pay for
a mutual society as well. No insurer or friendly society can compete with
the state, which can just tax everyone a bit more and print money in the
last resort — and can even create laws that it can exempt itself from,
making it more difficult for healthy competition. So they don’t, and they
will never hold the state to account.
Even if you manage to achieve what you consider to be a desirable
minarchist state, it will be back where we are before your children have
passed on.
States grow. That’s what they do. The only way to stop the state from
bloating and swallowing resources and wasting money on non-essential
things is to simply not have one.
Instead, rely on people’s ingenuity and inherent good will to resolve
the things that you blindly continue to insist the state is necessary
for.
-
July 6, 2010 at 18:02
-
Obnoxio, I have enormous sympathy for your comments on the state
today. I share them.
-
July 6, 2010 at 18:11
-
- July 6, 2010 at 19:29
-
In other words, Kingbingo, those lesser people are just too fucking
dumb to live their own lives the way they choose to, and cannot be
personally responsible for the consequences of their own actions.
That’s why wiser, smarter people like yourself need to dictate to
them how they should live their lives.
You sir, are not a libertarian. I’m not even sure you’re a
Tory.
-
July 6, 2010 at 19:43
-
“In other words, Kingbingo, those lesser people are just too
fucking dumb to live their own lives the way they choose to, and
cannot be personally responsible for the consequences of their own
actions.
That
July 6, 2010 at 01:33
-
the state is necessary to tax you so it can provide things you cannot –
such as bridges , armies and predictable law.
- July 6, 2010 at 09:29
-
I have to say I agree with the clown on the bridge front. If there is
sufficient need for a bridge then someone will build one and charge a toll.
However, roads are a harder one. Yes 16th, 17th and 18th century Britain
had a myriad of roads. They were all privately built and connected areas of
commerce in a dispersed web. By contrast French roads built by the state
were long and straight and used to get armies around.
However, I do still feel that funding road infrastructure is a legitimate
activity of the state, much as I believe funding a minimal level of
healthcare and welfare. However, I just don
- July 6, 2010 at 09:55
-
“When the Clown asks the state should tax for roads, the answer is to
provide good quality roads, freely accessible without the free-rider
problem.”
Well, the motorist is taxed to buggery and the roads are rubbish as
well as insufficient. We also have free riders in the form of foreign HGV
drivers that do massive damage to our roads, probably more so than our own
HGVs and cars.
So that’s clearly working.
- July 5, 2010 at 23:52
-
“Surely you can see if the UK was spilt into at least a dozen
Cantons/States etc, the very same principle can apply?”
Well, yes, but at the end of the day, you are not answering my question.
Each one of those states at the very best is still going to have the curious
situation where it violates the very property rights you claim can only be
protected by its existence.
How is protecting my property rights by violating them any different from
“fucking for virginity”? I don’t care how fucking small the state in question
is, ultimately it will still enforce my property rights by violating them.
And how is this a straw man?
- July 5, 2010 at 23:56
-
- July 6, 2010 at 00:07
-
It has nothing to do with ideological purity. How can you tell me with
a straight face that I have to accept the existence of a state to protect
property right — THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE, according to you — but I must
allow the state to violate my property rights as part of its defence of my
property rights?
How can the very thing that you insist is the only way to protect my
property rights, be the very thing that gets to violate my property rights
and I have absolutely no recourse against it?
- July 6, 2010 at 00:00
-
- July 6, 2010 at 00:09
-
I’ve never disputed that localism is better than a monolithic central
government. Competition would absolutely work in that situation.
But it’s an academic exercise to me: I don’t give a toss about the
ideological purity of localism, I want to know why you expect me to accept
that the state is a necessary thing?
- July 5, 2010 at 23:44
-
“In fact, I suspect that all we really need for this to happen is nothing
more than to remove from society all the sociopaths and psychopaths who fall
into the tribe of
- July 5, 2010 at 23:54
-
If you haven’t divined by now that I have no truck with forcing people to
do what they don’t want to do, at the barrel of a gun, then there really is
no hope for you.
Or, in smaller words: it was a joke.
July 5, 2010 at 22:27
-
- July 5, 2010 at 22:08
-
July 5, 2010 at 21:51
-
I scarce thought I’d care an iota
For lads who like nailing their
scrota
To workbench or board
To ill-treat a pork-sword,
While taking
their turn in a rota,
But I find I care more than I knew
That these boy are given curfew
At
Her Majesty’s Pleasure
For nailing their treasure
To a bit of old pine
(one-by-two).
I’d discourage my own teenage son
From doing what these boys have
done;
If I had an inkling
That he’d nail his ‘tinkling’ –
I’d suggest
that he used a nail-gun.
It’s quicker and neater, you see,
And there’s more chance of having a
wee:
If your urethra’s not broke
By a stray ball-peen stroke
You may
still be able to pee.
So I’d say to my son & his mates
“You know that society
hates?
It’s a slow-coach and so
Speed up! Tally-ho!
You just need to
double your rates!”
“There’s a World Record there to be had!
Just nail down those todgers –
be glad!
We’ll invite a McWhirter
To inspect the squirter
And if it
dribbles, then that’s just too bad!”
“If you pin down those peckers at speed
They won’t think that jail is
what’s need
-ed … They’ll say “Ooh” & “Ahh”
“That boy’ll go
far
Just as his dad’s Queen’s Counsel pleaded”
So I don’t tell the boys “Don’t do that!”
“Don’t you dare stick that pin
in that hat!”
For all that I know
You’ll get yer own show
On YouTube
or something like that.
July 5, 2010 at 22:00
July 5, 2010 at 23:37
-
Pity the Limerick Compo has finished!
- July 5, 2010 at 21:22
-
“Which private sector firms get it right every single time?”
This is a curious assertion, an AnCap society consists of more than private
sector firms, it consists of people as well.
But because all these institutions are populated by people, they are
fallible. What is so special about the state that its fallibility is better
than anyone else’s?
- July 5, 2010 at 22:41
-
“What is so special about the state that its fallibility is better than
anyone else
- July 5, 2010 at 22:56
-
So what you’re saying is that we need the state because the state is
the ONLY mechanism whereby people can have property rights? There is
absolutely no other way in which property rights can be enforced? I’m sure
that some deep-thinking libertarian somewhere has come up with an
alternative. But I would also like to point out the conundrum of a state
enforcing property rights which is also entitled to violate those same
rights that it is constituted to enforce, when it comes to taxation.
You are effectively saying that because cops can catch crooks, they
should be allowed to commit a little crime on the side as payment for them
catching crooks!
While your high-minded tosh about defending various liberties from
various awful villains sounds lovely, the truth of the matter is that the
self-same government which you are praising is the very agent that does
the most damage to our liberties!
And you wilfully ignore the lessons of history that teach us that as
soon as the state enters a market it uses monopoly powers to undercut
everyone and drive all competition out of the market. They cannot go
bankrupt, they can spend taxpayer money like it’s water, they are not
subject to market forces. Who can compete with that?
So, once again, I ask you: what is the state’s magic sauce? How come
you are happy to submit to the state, which you admit is fallible; how
come you’re happy to let the state take your property with menaces in the
name of enforcing property rights; and how come do you think any business
can compete with someone that has unlimited funds and the ability to
change the law?
-
July 5, 2010 at 23:14
-
I’m struggling at this point. Either I’m being far less clear than I
think I am, or your trolling me. You keep using strawmen against me and
not engaging or attempting to engage me on the substantive points I’m
making. namely:
1) The idea that competition between small states is healthy. in the
same way it is for small businesses. And that citizens must have a
choice of states. (Switzerland being the closest modern example)
2) That mechanisms must be in place to protect citizens from harmful
‘other regarding’ liberties of some citizens. That mechanism is embodied
in a state.
3) That the citizen must in turn be protected from from the state.
Ways to do so are a constitution and election of ALL public servants and
their budget. Essentially, limits on governments.
Perhaps I can only express this properly in a much long article.
Clearly you are not understanding what I am saying, you keep returning
some notion of this being ‘magic’; I also need to explain ‘other
regarding liberties’ clearly, rather than just assume a familiarity with
John Stewart Mill; and I also need to explain that a state does not have
to look like what you think a state is, in the same way a cat does not
have to look like this bloated number: http://www.photopost.com/photopost/data/5/fat-cat.jpg .
So obviously this is not the correct format. When I have the time for
such an undertaking I will write it. I hope then your see what I’m
getting at.
- July 5, 2010 at 23:24
-
But you’re not answering MY main point: you’re saying we must have
a state which must have characteristics X, Y and Z.
a) WHY must a state exist to give us these things? and
b) What is the straw man in asking why you are asking for the state
to enforce property rights while allowing the state itself to break
the very rights you claim that ONLY the state can enforce?
-
July 5, 2010 at 23:24
-
“So what you
- July 5, 2010 at 23:29
-
The reason why no one has come up with it (if I am to take your
“facts” at face value) is because nobody has been in that situation.
I, on the other hand, am quite comfortable that if we were placed in
that position, things would naturally evolve to replace the state.
In fact, I suspect that all we really need for this to happen is
nothing more than to remove from society all the sociopaths and
psychopaths who fall into the tribe of “politicians”.
Once there is no greasy pole to climb and the people who want climb
greasy poles are not there any more, you will be amazed at how
ingenious people can be in the business of getting along.
-
July 5, 2010 at 23:39
-
- July 5, 2010 at 21:16
-
“The same logic can be applied to states.”
So you keep saying, but you don’t seem to be able to tell me what this
magic sauce is that makes the state so much wiser and smarter than the people
it rules?
- July 5, 2010 at 22:32
-
Nothing. You sound like one of these people who just don’t ‘get’
evolution, and keep asking “how do animals know to evolve eyes, teeth,
faster legs etc” it does’nt work like that.
So let me break this down:
Competition between restaurants = Good. You
still get shite restaurants with bad food, and high prices, they just don’t
last long and are not successful, people vote with their feet and go to the
good ones.
Competition between self governing regions of the UK = Good.
Good. You
still get shite self governing regions with socialism and stupid laws, they
just don’t last long and are not successful, people vote with their feet and
go to the good ones.
Or maybe people will choose to live in the 90% tax rate socialist state
of western Scotland.
The important thing is your free to move to the
libertarian state of Wessex.
Do you see?
- July 5, 2010 at 20:41
-
If prosecutors & judge view some evidence that is claimed to be likely
July 5, 2010 at 17:36
-
Question- How do you nail your own nipples to a breadboard ? purely in the
interest of science of course , all has happened so far is two very swollen
thumbs !
July 5, 2010 at 18:32
-
Sarbanes, my memory has been corrected since then – it is your testicles
that you must nail to the bread board, whilst saying out loud – “I’m
enjoying this, I’m enjoying this, but not too much your honour”
No hang on, I’ve still got it wrong – it’s someone else’s testicles that
you nail to the bread board.
Before you line up candidates, they get to nail yours to the same bread
board. Could be a little too much togetherness with some people, so chose
your companion wisely.
-
July 5, 2010 at 20:27
-
I suspect it was their scrotum rather than their testicles.
1. Bollocks can be rather hard to pin down.
2. And possibly too painful, even for them.
-
July 5, 2010 at 22:25
-
It’s been watered down so much now I’m no longer impressed.
July 6, 2010 at 10:33
-
It wasn’t a bread board, but a floor board.
It wasn’t the scrotum, but the penis.
Nothing was hammered through anything. Nails were inserted through
a pre-existing penile piercing into the floor.
The mythology surrounding the prosecutions emerging from Operation
Spanner persists, it seems.
It was kicked off by a VCR repairman who found a home video, left
in a faulty VCR, of a group of mates enjoying their mutual pleasures
in a private venue, who took it to the police believing he had found
the great mythical Snuff Movie. Greater Manchester Police decided that
these acts were so repulsive that all the men involved must be
prosecuted. The manner in which this was done was a travesty of law,
where the video was edited before being shown to the court to make it
appear the most violent and repellent it could. The outcome of this
was that those who had consented to be ‘injured’ were convicted of
conspiracy to commit GBH, a more serious offence than mere GBH, of
which the injurers were convicted.
Of those sentenced to prison, one died there. The others lost jobs,
families, sanity. With case law that meant consent was no defence to
engaging in such activities, the previous government decided to
enshrine this in statute law. I have a letter from the then minister,
Hillary Benn, reassuring me that the law is (for it still exists)
designed to protect people from themselves.
And for anyone who isn’t inclined towards BDSM, the law defines a
non-transitory injury as any mark than does not fade within a couple
of hours. New Labour made love bites a criminal offence. Way to
go.
July 5,
2010 at 14:56
-
“It is a ludicrous anomaly, and none of the State
July 5, 2010 at 14:48
-
Hi there,
I am the National Convener of CAAN, a disabled (transgendered) activist
with a twelve year history in the disabled people’s movement. I was one of a
number of people who helped Jane Fae (previously known as John Ozimek
This book is available in a range of formats,
July 5,
2010 at 14:40
-
@Alan (post 10) – never seen it put better than that. I’m pinching that for
my blog, if that’s OK with you.
- July 5,
2010 at 14:35
-
No need for a hard hat, Anna – you are spot on. Not only does the state
have no business getting involved in activity between consenting adults (or
adults on their own, come to that), but neither does anyone else. The Max
Mosely case showed clearly that, even if an activity is legal, there are
certain things which, if you are caught doing them, will result in public
humiliation and a rapid narrowing of career choices. I suppose the positive
way of looking at this is to say that society is moving in the right
direction. Homosexuality used to be a criminal offence, then it became merely
disapproved of, and now it is pretty much unremarked by most people. I can say
with certainty that my own attitudes have evolved over the last 30 years, from
disapproval to grudging and then genuine acceptance (I haven’t reached the
stage of enthusiasm yet). The transgender thing seems to be heading in the
same way. Perhaps we should see them as the vanguard, and in 50 years’ time
people will be as unaffected by an admission of (say) BDSM tendencies as they
are today when someone comes out as gay, i.e. “so what?”
I have to say that my own little ‘peculiarity’ will be one of the last to
be generally accepted, but then as goats rarely complain to the mainstream
media I think I am safe from exposure for a while yet.
- July 5, 2010 at 14:41
-
Richard B,
Is it right that certain groups are plucked from the mire of disapproval
and elevated to the charmed circle though? That relies on an ability to
lobby and protest, not on the essential ‘right’ of their cause.
Should it not be the case that no one should suffer discrimination in
respect of their sexuality unless it is specifically illegal?
PS. The Society For the Protection of Goats have asked for your contact
details – should I tell them? !!!!!!!
- July
5, 2010 at 14:50
-
No, it isn’t right. But big changes never happen in an orderly and
satisfactory way. All I was saying was that we seem to be moving in the
right direction. Perhaps.
Give the SFPG my details, by all means – I like a fight.
July 5, 2010 at 14:00
-
As I recall, they were nailing their scrota to the wood. Ouch.
I like your “general thrust of our legislation” bit – ooh, missus!
- July 5, 2010 at 13:47
-
- July 5, 2010 at 14:05
-
Kingbingo – damn good question!
Edited to add – I suspect the answer will be the ‘do no harm principle’.
Which has got me wondering about that Goat – is it actually harmed? It
certainly is being turned into curry.
- July 5, 2010 at 15:28
-
Kingbingo, it’s a very baffling subject to me. I wrote a post many moons ago about how complicated sex is as a
subject and how different cultures regard, for instance, the legal age of
consent.
In constrast, sex with animals is confusing (in every way!) because the
animal cannot consent to sexual intercourse, but then by the same token,
it would hardly consent to being slaughtered and eaten, either! (As an
amusing aside, some Muslim cultures consider eating goats haram if
you’ve had sex with them! However, you can eat if if you haven’t shagged
it. ;o)
So, using the approach that fucking something is less distressing than
killing it and eating it, I suppose the logical conclusion is that
bestiality is between you and the goat.
But paedophilia is much more subtle because eventually, a child will
become interested in what is between their legs and it’s confused by the
fact that different cultures approach the age of consent in such vastly
different ways. Some countries consider 12 “old enough”, some states in
the USA consider 18 “old enough”. So what would be considered legal
intercourse in the UK could be considered paedophilia in some parts of the
States. Conversely, what is considered paedophilia in the UK is perfectly
legal in Spain or Portugal.
And anyway, the AnCap approach is to consider people as individuals and
not dumb cattle that need an imprimitur from the state to decide when they
can have sex and when they can’t.
You can’t even use puberty as a guideline, because some people go
through puberty at a very early age, so I, as a parent, would still be
incredibly uncomfortable with allowing such a child to have sex.
I suppose I would say that while a child lives with its parents and the
parents are responsible for the child, it is up to the parents to decide
what constitutes paedophilia and what doesn’t.
My take on the “3rd world” angle is to say that really, the answer is
to improve wealth in the 3rd world and consequently education. Or the
other way around, I don’t mind. People are often complicit in making
decisions they don’t really want to out of desperation, which is an awful
place to be in, anyway.
As a parent, this is a difficult subject for me to discuss
dispassionately, and I don’t know that I can give a definitive AnCap
answer, but it’s the answer I feel is best.
July 5, 2010 at 18:50
-
Obnoxio says that sex with animals is confusing. The Church of
England would agree. Here is the Authorized Version, Leviticus, chapter
18, verse 23:
“Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:
neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is
confusion.”
July 5, 2010 at 20:52
-
Richard,
Leviticus is lame. In Robert Graves’ translation of the
Dead Sea Scrolls Adam the first man has to say to God (I’ll
papaphrase) Look God, this is unfair, you gave all the other animals
females for when they get a bit hormoney but me I’m stuck on my tod.
I’ve had a go at the goats, I’ve shagged the sheep, boffed a buffalo,
I’ve even Rogered a Reindeer but the emotional connection just isn’t
there. Can you do something because I’m gagging for it here.
So God set about making a woman. His first attempt was Lilith but
she wasn’t a success. Not surprising when you read what he made her
out of, (it tells us a lot about middle eastern mythical taditions
however.)
-
July 5, 2010 at 19:55
-
Sorry Obnoxio but I have to press on this, because as well know full
well some some parents are not good parents.
So let
- July 5, 2010 at 20:10
-
“The nature of the films are such the children are subject to some
physical harm”
Ah, well, why didn’t you say! That’s simple: non-consensual harm.
Bad. End of.
- July 5, 2010 at 20:26
-
To your point about government setting criminal law, I’d like to
ask you how you feel about the thousands of new and spurious legal
offences we have now? Who is to say that your minarchist state would
only have laws you agree with?
To raise another specific case: what happens if your minarchist
state creates a law that bans people from carrying a knife? A knife
is, after all, just a tool and I carried one for decades before the
knife-crazy government here decreed that carrying a knife was illegal.
Furthermore, there is no sign among the general populace that there is
any appetite for this to be revoked. But people who want to carry a
knife and cause no harm through carrying a knife are criminalised for
the mere act of carrying a tool.
At what point does the state cross the line from implementing
sensible law to “protect the cheeeeldren” into complete stupidity?
What, in your opinion, is the magic that sanctifies the state’s law
making abilities?
After all, laws banning smoking in pubs and in cars and in private
clubs and so on were all made by this magic. Laws banning people from
carrying specific tools were made by this magic. Laws banning people
from arming themselves for their own defence were made by this magic.
Laws banning protests outside Parliament were made with this magic.
Laws banning freedom of association were made with this magic. Laws
that allow “positive discrimination” were made by this magic.
So why do you rate this magic so highly?
-
July 5, 2010 at 21:10
-
July 5, 2010 at 20:41
-
Obnoxio,
Animals have their own ways of witholding consent. I used
to own a Welsh cob mare and if I tried to mount her (in a saddle and
stirrups related way) when she wasn’t in the mood there was no way I was
going to get my hack across the moors one day.
I hate to think what she would have done to me if I’d tried to ride
her in the colloquial sense. She did have a delightful habit of farting
whenever I was brushing the burrs out of her tail however which might be
a clue.
-
July 5, 2010 at 20:50
-
“That
- July 5, 2010 at 21:07
-
Kingbingo: which society has gotten it right every single time?
-
July 5, 2010 at 21:14
-
July 5, 2010 at 13:39
-
AR – “True equality demands that everyone is protected from discrimination
for legal activities.”
Is this really what you mean, because the Harriet Harman’s of this world
would be quite happy with that, seeing as they propagandise for what should be
legal?
I think you are much less ambiguous when you state:
“There is no logical
reason for the State to intervene beyond protecting those who are incapable of
giving informed consent to sexual activity, by which I mean children, of
course, the mentally vulnerable in some cases, and animals. Beyond those
protective barriers, the state has no business dictating how our penis or
clitoris is stimulated.”
I think that statement should be government policy.
Unfortunately for those educated via Walt Disney human sexuality is not all
sweetness and light, and even for a rational policy there will be some who
suffer unintended consequences:
From Wikipedia – “Since breath control play
is, according to the trial testimony, practiced so widely, the frequency of
this cause of death in the UK is surprisingly low. In the US autoerotic
asphyxia kills an estimated 500-1000 people per annum…”
That quote is taken from a wikipedia article regarding a death which ended
in a murder verdict, which can be unpleasant reading but was part of the
impetus for the legislation on ‘extreme pornography’:
From Wikipedia –
“Although the consultation found 63% of responses opposed strengthening the
law to address the “challenges of the Internet”, the UK government announced
on 30 August 2006 that it intends to introduce new laws governing the
possession of “extreme pornography”. The possession of such material would be
punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Coutts#Murder.2C_manslaughter_or_accident.3F
July 5, 2010 at 13:58
-
“Is this really what you mean, because the Harriet Harman
- July 5, 2010 at 14:54
-
Pretty obviously the last paragraph in my post shows that Harpersons of
the UK do manipulate the legislation to fit their prejudices (which I
think goes along with most of your post).
With that in mind, though, the idea of
- July 5, 2010 at 20:20
-
Yes that is the approach they take. They don’t have to though, it is
merely the easiest route to take. MPs have reduced being an MP to ‘law
making’ so cannot take a more restrained approach to life and
legislation. They cannot resist. Perhaps they have a fetish for it!
Introducing legislation to make a previously legal activity illegal
is in itself discrimination. Parliament is supposed to weigh up whether
the discrimination they wish to inflict is proportionate to the problem
at hand. With extreme porn the activity they have made illegal is
‘looking at certain types of images’. There is *no* sense of proportion
to it.
A general lack of an Opposition for much of the last 13 years didn’t
help. Plus to a certain extent law making has become a case of expecting
the Opposition to justify not changing things rather than the Government
justifying why a change should be made.
July 5, 2010 at 13:12
-
“This CAAN publication is also available in standard and large print,
indexed computer disc and audio CD. Other formats are available on
request.”
Possibly this means tattooed on the buttocks of your choice, or the audio
version which includes somebody pleading abjectly for the large print version.
Madom perhaps inadvertently selected the “pocket” edition?
- July 5, 2010 at 13:37
- July 5, 2010 at 14:49
-
hmm we haven’t made a buttock tattoo version yet, but are open to
negotiation
- July 5, 2010 at 14:59
-
Clair,
If the tattoo is done badly enough, it could probably double
as the Braille version.
- July 5, 2010 at 15:05
-
Well… it would beat the pants off DAISY… so to speak.. ! I am now
having some fun imagining being out on a protest and saying “Yes, we do
have a Braille version, just hold on while I pull down my pants…!”
- July 5, 2010 at
15:07
- July 5, 2010 at 15:13
-
sorry DAISY is an audio format http://www.daisy.org/
July 5,
2010 at 12:07
-
So long as it is between consenting individuals then the state has no
business getting involved in what happens in the bedroom (bathroom, kitchen
etc etc). For me that also includes prostitution, so long as the person
charging is doing so of their own free will.
As an aside, as much as I enjoy reading Ozimek ‘s work the stuff on sex
isn’t always without its own slant – understandable I suppose given the
author’s own circumstances.
July 5, 2010 at 13:09
-
The trouble is that in probably the majority of cases, prostitution is
the career of drug-addicted women (or boys) who have no other means of
income to fuel their habit, and for whom sex is a means to fulfil a more
urgent need. So perhaps the idea of free will doesn’t have much of a look-in
here. Personally I have sympathy with libertarianism, but sometimes I think
that the theory overlooks some grimy realities..
- July
5, 2010 at 13:16
-
Hence why drugs should be decriminalized as well.
-
July 5, 2010 at 13:54
-
July 5,
2010 at 11:19
-
Too right Anna, like so many other things ‘outlawed’ in recent years (and
criminalised) ones sexual ‘bent’ should not be a subject for government
intervention, excepting as you point out certain practices , such as children
and others unable to protect themselves!
Ps how do you know about the frozen rabbit club ?, I thought we…er… they
had kept that pretty quiet!
- July 5, 2010 at 11:26
-
I learn a great deal from Thaddeus, mine of information he is……..
- July 7, 2010 at 09:07
{ 124 comments }