The slutty look is now out. If it’s not out of vogue, it’s definitely now out of the bounds of the law in the Commonwealth of Virginia (if it passes the Senate too). And all I can say is thank goodness!
I realize that there’s a quandary here if you believe in both a person’s right to autonomy, including choosing what type of clothing they will wear, and also in public decency. This is where the libertarian part of me clashes with the conservative part of me. And in the end, the conservative part of me wins.
If a person is to be restricted (the liberals love to do this by mandating seat belts, bike helmets, prohibiting smoking in restaurants, etc.), I’m glad that this time around, it’s for something I could truly appreciate – not having to be constantly subjected to the sight of girls’ thongs and guys’ boxers hanging out of their pants.
On second thought, I can also appreciate not having to inhale someone else’s cigarette smoke while dining in a California restaurant. (It’s illegal to smoke in any restaurant in California – so, here’s a tip, never ask for a “non-smoking table” in California or they’ll look at you like you’re from outer space.) Take note: this is probably the only time I will admit that liberalism, in a small way, has actually benefited my life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
So how do you justify this inconsistency? Isn't there an indecent exposure law on the books in VA? Why doesn't that cut the mustard? Does that mean that every single offensive thing needs its own category?
So, following your logic, all swiming pools, beaches, rivers, streams, etc. are off limits to people who want to swim - because the same level or more exposure occurs at these locations. Either that or you pay a "user fee" (the fine) and go ahead with and swim.
As Mark stated we already have MORE than enough laws here in VA to handle any such problems. This "problem" is already covered by statute. See: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-387.
Further, adding another layer of state agencies to handle a perceived problem is NOT the solution - even IF this was a big problem.
We have a $1 billion budget surplus that occured because the liberals lied to us and pushed through a tax increase. The legislature should be involved in returning that money right now, not fixing issues that are not supposed to be within the domain of the legislature. Bills like this are not good government.
Frankly I'm seriously (and I don't say that lightly) embarassed to live in Virginia right now. The conduct of the House in pushing this bill through is truly a waste. Disgraceful.
Not to pile on, but this is an interesting debate. You said: "This is where the libertarian part of me clashes with the conservative part of me. And in the end, the conservative part of me wins."
I'm not a political scholar, but it seems to me that a "conservative" views the government as an ineffective tool for correcting every social and cultural blight. I think your "clash" could more accurately be stated as libertarian vs. personal morality.
This bill fits more with the Constitutional Party/Vision Forum worldview that seeks to return our country back to the day when standards (and trousers) were set at more appropriate heights.
-mjr
A question: does the bill penalize the exposure of skin or of underwear? All the news coverage says it's a $50 if underwear can be seen. So what about the person with low-slung pants and no underwear? Gross, yes...but illegal? I don't know....
Oh great, I knew I would get in trouble with this one. Me and my big mouth. :-P
As I was driving to work today (prior to reading all these comments), I found myself thinking more about this issue. I suppose when you cross the line and say one infringement upon personal liberty is justifiable, to be intellectually honest, you have to say all of them are. And, trust me, I’m definitely not advocating for an expansion of government to intrude upon all of our lives.
How, then, is government justified in restricting any personal liberty? Libertarians, to my knowledge, say it’s okay for government to restrain personal liberty only to prevent harm to others. In other words, it’s okay to restrain murderers and thieves because their “free” behavior hurts others. But how far do you go? One example I gave was smoking in restaurants. You can debate until you’re blue in the face exactly what kind of “harm” second-hand smoke causes to others. So, maybe it is justifiable under libertarian thinking to restrict smoking in restaurants. I don’t really know any libertarian gurus I can contact right now to ask about this and don’t have much time right now to research it.
As far as showing off your underwear in public, to be honest, I’d have to admit that I’m not “harmed” by this, only grossed-out. And to be truthful, I have to confess (much to everyone’s relief) that deep down inside I know it’s not the government’s job to protect me from being grossed out.
Frankly, this post was written more on an emotional reaction (and posted with five minutes of free time to spare - you know how blogs are) rather than as a deeply thought-out public policy position. So don’t expect me to go on Fox news and argue my case for a society free of underwear exposure at the mall!! And aren’t we all glad? :-D
-Amy
P.S.:
Nathan – I would argue in your “swimming pool” analogy (IF I were to be defending the law, which here I’m just being devil’s advocate) that there are different community standards for swimming pool attire than there are for the shopping mall or airport. And people going to swimming pools and public beaches accept that.
Mike – I’m not a scholar on this issue either (obviously) but it’s my understanding that conservatives are more willing than libertarians to enforce a moral code upon citizens (while still respecting the God-given rights of mankind, evidenced in the natural law). Example: Libertarians are okay with gay marriage because people should be able to do whatever they want if they don’t harm each other. Conservatives are not okay with gay marriage because they believe that marriage should be restricted for the good of children and society. Like I’ve said before on my blog, law is not amoral. Most laws, especially in the penal code, reflect a moral standard. But it is true that both libertarians and conservatives desire a small government.
And, Anonymous – You make a good point. I’m not sure what the answer is. Maybe some smart alec, living in Virginia, will try it and we’ll hear about it in the news. ;-)
Here's my observation on issues like this one. In 1798 John Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was written for a religious and moral people and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." As Adams recognized, self-government (i.e., freedom) as group works only when the persons which make up that group govern themselves individually. As individuals throw off self-restraint (i.e., abuse their freedom), government will (and probably should) step in to impose restraint. Thus, public morality and government regulation are inversely proportional to each other. As morality declines, so we can expect regulation to increase.
I think that's what we're seeing in this situation. If these people who wear their clothes with their underwear hanging out at the mall would exercise self-restraint, there would be no need for regulation of this issue. Additionally, because they are not exercising self-restraint, we can expect government to step in and regulated it.
PS. This problem is NOT "already covered by statute" in Virginia. Virginia's public decency statute covers only exposure of a "person." Technically, the existence of the underwear, along with other clothing in the particular circumstances, prevents exposure of the "person" (i.e., skin).
Whoever you are (the last anonymous commenter), you sound just like my husband. Good thoughts. Thank you for sharing!
-Amy
Nathan: Just think, you could be embarrassed to live in Oregon, where suicide, drugs, euthanasia and gay marriage all are, or have been at some point, "legal." I'll take a state legislature that values modesty and decency (even if it goes a little overboard) over Oregon's depraved government any day.
It could always be worse. :)
Post a Comment