Daniel: capitalist: nirgrahamUK: I gave a joke answer, because i don't take the question seriously. someone is rude...suck it up. the market price of your property changes for any reason. if you can anticipate it or insure against it and you want to for the cost. go to it. if you dont or you can't, thats just life. freedom and prosperity should not be junked just because not everyone likes what everyone else does. I wonder if tomorrow your new neighbor painted in huge letters on his house "death to niggers and kikes" you would hesitate for a second to use gov't intervention to coerce him into removing the words. I certainly would out of fear for a drop in my home's value as well as my children seeing such words. What if government intervention forced "niggers" to pick cotton and segregated them from the rest of society? What if government intervention forced "kikes" to abandon their homes and property, and forced them to work in labor camps? What if government intervention dropped nukes on "Japs"? What if government intervention napalmed "Viet-congs"? What if government intervention starved millions of millions in China and the Soviet Union? What if government intervention blew up "sand niggers" with surgical precision?
capitalist: nirgrahamUK: I gave a joke answer, because i don't take the question seriously. someone is rude...suck it up. the market price of your property changes for any reason. if you can anticipate it or insure against it and you want to for the cost. go to it. if you dont or you can't, thats just life. freedom and prosperity should not be junked just because not everyone likes what everyone else does. I wonder if tomorrow your new neighbor painted in huge letters on his house "death to niggers and kikes" you would hesitate for a second to use gov't intervention to coerce him into removing the words. I certainly would out of fear for a drop in my home's value as well as my children seeing such words.
nirgrahamUK: I gave a joke answer, because i don't take the question seriously. someone is rude...suck it up. the market price of your property changes for any reason. if you can anticipate it or insure against it and you want to for the cost. go to it. if you dont or you can't, thats just life. freedom and prosperity should not be junked just because not everyone likes what everyone else does.
I gave a joke answer, because i don't take the question seriously. someone is rude...suck it up. the market price of your property changes for any reason. if you can anticipate it or insure against it and you want to for the cost. go to it. if you dont or you can't, thats just life.
freedom and prosperity should not be junked just because not everyone likes what everyone else does.
I wonder if tomorrow your new neighbor painted in huge letters on his house "death to niggers and kikes" you would hesitate for a second to use gov't intervention to coerce him into removing the words. I certainly would out of fear for a drop in my home's value as well as my children seeing such words.
What if government intervention forced "niggers" to pick cotton and segregated them from the rest of society? What if government intervention forced "kikes" to abandon their homes and property, and forced them to work in labor camps? What if government intervention dropped nukes on "Japs"? What if government intervention napalmed "Viet-congs"? What if government intervention starved millions of millions in China and the Soviet Union? What if government intervention blew up "sand niggers" with surgical precision?
You're avoiding my question and it saddens me. I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I don't want or need a lecture on the evils that governments have perpetuated. I ask you a simple question -- tomorrow, if your neighbor painted "death to niggers and kikes" on the outside of his house, would you involve the state in some way (i.e. calling the police, alerting a local representative, etc)?
Don't bother responding if you are unwilling to answer this question.
capitalist: Daniel: capitalist: Daniel, I believe exposing certain parts of your body can be considered self-expression, yes. And I am concerned about if such a thing happened tomorrow, not in a theoretical anarchic society. If I were to see a man on public property tomorrow exposing his junk to children, would it be wrong for me to get the state involved? Then blame the state. After all, they were in charge of making sure it didn't happen. So you're saying it is legitimate for the state to preemptively outlaw me from showing my genitals to people?
Daniel: capitalist: Daniel, I believe exposing certain parts of your body can be considered self-expression, yes. And I am concerned about if such a thing happened tomorrow, not in a theoretical anarchic society. If I were to see a man on public property tomorrow exposing his junk to children, would it be wrong for me to get the state involved? Then blame the state. After all, they were in charge of making sure it didn't happen.
capitalist: Daniel, I believe exposing certain parts of your body can be considered self-expression, yes. And I am concerned about if such a thing happened tomorrow, not in a theoretical anarchic society. If I were to see a man on public property tomorrow exposing his junk to children, would it be wrong for me to get the state involved?
Daniel,
I believe exposing certain parts of your body can be considered self-expression, yes. And I am concerned about if such a thing happened tomorrow, not in a theoretical anarchic society. If I were to see a man on public property tomorrow exposing his junk to children, would it be wrong for me to get the state involved?
Then blame the state. After all, they were in charge of making sure it didn't happen.
So you're saying it is legitimate for the state to preemptively outlaw me from showing my genitals to people?
Lol. So you're saying that your rights as a neighbor supersede the property rights of your neighbor?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
capitalist: Daniel: capitalist: nirgrahamUK: I gave a joke answer, because i don't take the question seriously. someone is rude...suck it up. the market price of your property changes for any reason. if you can anticipate it or insure against it and you want to for the cost. go to it. if you dont or you can't, thats just life. freedom and prosperity should not be junked just because not everyone likes what everyone else does. I wonder if tomorrow your new neighbor painted in huge letters on his house "death to niggers and kikes" you would hesitate for a second to use gov't intervention to coerce him into removing the words. I certainly would out of fear for a drop in my home's value as well as my children seeing such words. What if government intervention forced "niggers" to pick cotton and segregated them from the rest of society? What if government intervention forced "kikes" to abandon their homes and property, and forced them to work in labor camps? What if government intervention dropped nukes on "Japs"? What if government intervention napalmed "Viet-congs"? What if government intervention starved millions of millions in China and the Soviet Union? What if government intervention blew up "sand niggers" with surgical precision? You're avoiding my question and it saddens me.
You're avoiding my question and it saddens me.
Then the state should force you to take some Prozac.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist and I don't want or need a lecture on the evils that governments have perpetuated. I ask you a simple question -- tomorrow, if your neighbor painted "death to niggers and kikes" on the outside of his house, would you involve the state in some way (i.e. calling the police, alerting a local representative, etc)?
No. But I would let everyone know.
Daniel: No. But I would let everyone know.
For what purpose? So someone else would get the state involved?
capitalist: Daniel: No. But I would let everyone know. For what purpose? So someone else would get the state involved?
If I may....
So that anyone that does not appreciate Jim's Zeal for Nazism will keep it in mind when the opportunity to deal with him in the market arises....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Harry Felker: I do note however that not much has changed around here...
I do note however that not much has changed around here...
What the hell is that supposed to mean?!!
don't answer...lol
capitalist: Daniel: No. But I would let everyone know. For what purpose?
For what purpose?
So that we can persuade the Jew-hating Nazi-lover to remove the what he wrote.
So someone else would get the state involved?
That is not my problem, nor would it be my fault.
bloomj31: lol @ this thread.
lol @ this thread.
ain't it!!!
lol
edit: that one you reponded this on was a hip-hip-hooray!!
wilderness:What the hell is that supposed to mean?!!
Well what I said...
wilderness:don't answer...lol
OOps Too Late....
Harry Felker: If I may.... So that anyone that does not appreciate Jim's Zeal for Nazism will keep it in mind when the opportunity to deal with him in the market arises....
So that the anti-anti-Semitic bakers will refuse him bread until he takes down the nazi stuff in his front yard... got it. Best response yet, thank you. Will throw this at my friend next chance I get.
Harry Felker: OOps Too Late....
damn
Jonathan M. F. Catalán replied on 12-08-2009 5:19 PM
"Although Jim is devalueing your property, I don't think that justifies you forcing him to change his lawn to bring the price of your property back up. On the other hand, if you stand to profit, I'm not sure why you could not compromise (with the use of money, for example)."
This is Gossen's answer: compensate the other party if you prefer the result to the compensation.
demosthenes replied on 12-08-2009 5:37 PM
"Would it be unjust for a Jew to give the guy a beatdown? I'd claim self-defense, seeing as the words "Death to the Jews" painted on the wall present a clear case of a threat to use force. At least that's what I'd say if I was the Jew's attorney."
This is also correct, because you would be responding to a threat (you don't know whether he is lying or serious). If he's not serious, then why would he write it (unless it turns out he is stupid by birth)?
I say, kick his ass if that's what he wrote, since that's an option. It's cheaper than paying him off.
In the long run, paying him off would work better, apparently.
There is a popular Russian anecdote, about the power of incentives: A couple walks down the street and an idiot runs up and kisses the girl in the mouth. The guy, instead of punching the idiot, gives him 200 rubles. The idiot, having been given 200 rubles, tries this again, with other people, expecting 200 rubles. The next couple he sees he kisses the girl. The other guy is not so nice; he pulls out a gun, instead of 200 rubles, and shoots the idiot.
Would like you to mention that the state in fact requires people to interact with him based on his need of their services, anti-discrimination laws work both ways....
In an an-cap society where people are regarded by their reputation, and dealt with in the market place by such, they tend to keep things like your friends hypothetical Jim's philosophy under wraps...
Which is the point of paying him off to give him an incentive to reveal his prejudices.
Then people won't do business with him (in an A-capitalist society), and he'll suffer the consequences.
Plus, the person who pays him off get's higher property values.
wilderness: ain't it!!! lol
"So you're saying it is legitimate for the state to preemptively outlaw me from showing my genitals to people?"
Every time I read this I laugh.
If you show you genitals to someone who doesn't want them, won't he refuse to do business with you? Or worse, kick (!) you.
thelion: If you show you genitals to someone who doesn't want them, won't he refuse to do business with you? Or worse, kick (!) you.
LOL, I would imagine so. But I don't feel like personally testing this out.
Harry Felker:There is no such thing as Public Property, just owned, unowned and unobtainable...
I agree that "public" can be referred to rather as "stolen" for all we care. I don't see your point in using "unobtainable". A thing can be owned or not, and to own different things has different requirements (again, all I care to consider is the model of aprioristic libertarian law). What is unobtainable that has to do with property?
There might be actions which we call "impossible" that are merely impractical or yet to be conceived of. An example could be that we'd say compensating victims of murder truly (with the return of their stolen life) is impossible; however, should we conceive of how to do it, we know along what lines it should be done.
If a good is scarce, it should be alienable (commodifiable). If what you mean by unobtainable is "not-scarce", like perhaps a mental state, then okay. This is the only way for a theory of property rights to maintain coherence. The unobtainable has no value to a system of property, whereas it might in another discussion.
capitalist:Could you please elaborate on this? How would the "some sort of homeowners association" coerce my neighbor into lowering his nazi flag?
It can't (legally, from our perspective anyhow). First of all, the whole discussion of nazism is utterly worthless and could be discarded immediately. The question of whether his swastika is violating your easement rights to sunlight is a separate matter. For the discussion of the Home Owner Association, we must assume that the "undesirable neighbor" is not actually violating anyone's rights. The presence of an advocate of a political theory which we might call pure evil, does not in itself constitute a threat, and a price is not ever property. It's a fallacious appeal to emotion to use a nazi for this hypothetical situation, and we would find many more instances of more mildly undesirable neighbours.
Let's say that the nazi moves in and waves his symbol of hatred peacefully for a few decades before passing in the night. To the neighborhood's joy, an average, upstanding Joe buys the property and moves in. They've had the misfortune of depressed property values and decide (initiated by a thymological understanding that people don't like living near "undesirables") to ask Joe to join voluntarily into their HOA. Joe considers that his membership in the HOA might be beneficial, should he decide to move away. Perhaps future buyers will value rules barring public display of nazi imagery and be willing to join this HOA.
Joe might agree to cede a portion of his rights (to fly "offensive flags" although it harms none). He'd also have to agree likely that he could only sell a title to his land as long as the new tenant also agreed to HOA rules. He agreed to this for a reason after all. He can't just back out and start flying crazy flags or break his contract later.
What if the HOA says it is undesirable to wear red scarves on Tuesdays and their members may be shot by HOA security on sight for doing such? Will Joe agree to this? I wouldn't, but if I did, it is still legally the same situation. Even if I don't like wearing scarves at all, It seems unlikely to me that having a house which I can only sell on the condition that someone would agree to this rule would not be economically beneficial.
We can call these juridical measures. They are legitimate, having been come to with all parties agreeing voluntarily, yet coercive in nature. Since we can't initiate aggression, we must take these before any dispute arises.
capitalist:I think you have missed the point. The issue is not about which views my neighbor is expressing (it could be 'death to whites, blacks, gays, red-heads, tall people, libertarians, etc), but the fact that his self expression on his property a) makes me worse off because no one wants to buy a house next to him and b) is generally regarded as incredibly hurtful and offensive.
Our time has not come yet, and the solution is right here for you. Consider buying property where neighbors agree to not paint penises with Hitler mustaches on them outside their home. The alternative is to consider aggression (government) as a means to your supposed ends.
capitalist:I'm an anarcho-capitalist
I like cheese too.
capitalist: I ask you a simple question -- tomorrow, if your neighbor painted "death to niggers and kikes" on the outside of his house, would you involve the state in some way (i.e. calling the police, alerting a local representative, etc)?
No. I understand that the other things I value (my own property rights) can't be coherently upheld without respecting my dumbass neighbor's property rights as well.
Maybe some local grocery stores are members of the Anti-Dumbass Neighbor Alliance. Me sending them pictures of what this fool did to his house would lead to ADNA revoking his bonus card. Maybe they will decide that they can get more business by refusing to serve people like my neighbor at all. He can sunbathe naked on his front lawn as my kids come home from school, and I will absorb the increase in grocery prices in order to hopefully get rid of him. Similarly to how we know that it is expensive to fund a war without also stealing to pay for it, we can guess who will win this "battle".
It's a battle again upholding individual rights of free association that can lead to a desirable outcome. We can call these extra-juridical measures.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
a) In an an-cap society, wouldn't the kick be considered an act of aggression, while the running around with my genitals exposed be considered a non aggressive act of self-expression? I think the kicker would be at fault, not the nudist.
b) For a pervert hiding his identity with a mask, the threat of people refusing to do business with him provides very little disincentive to discourage him from exposing himself to children
capitalist:Yes, the flag is technically on his property, but aren't the realms of his property vs my property vs public property (i.e. air and sunlight) not so clearly defined?
Neither air nor sunlight are public properties. Your problem is you are trying to force the concepts of "air" and "sunlight" into a single aggregate. Anyone who tries to force "land" into an aggregate would run into the same problem.
But "land" is not public property even though many different people rightfully possess it, because "land" does not exist as an aggregate but is rather divided into many different private parcels. The same is true of "air" and "sunlight".
If his flag is casting a detrimental amount of shade on your property then you would have case, but then you've just changed the goal posts. If shade was the conflict it wouldnt matter what was written on the flag.
Peace
capitalist: thelion: If you show you genitals to someone who doesn't want them, won't he refuse to do business with you? Or worse, kick (!) you. a) In an an-cap society, wouldn't the kick be considered an act of aggression, while the running around with my genitals exposed be considered a non aggressive act of self-expression? I think the kicker would be at fault, not the nudist. b) For a pervert hiding his identity with a mask, the threat of people refusing to do business with him provides very little disincentive to discourage him from exposing himself to children
Lol. Showing your penis to little kids is not "self-expression" if the owner of the property on which the act is made says it ain't so.
JonBostwick: capitalist:Yes, the flag is technically on his property, but aren't the realms of his property vs my property vs public property (i.e. air and sunlight) not so clearly defined? ... If his flag is casting a detrimental amount of shade on your property then you would have case, but then you've just changed the goal posts. If shade was the conflict it wouldnt matter what was written on the flag.
... If his flag is casting a detrimental amount of shade on your property then you would have case, but then you've just changed the goal posts. If shade was the conflict it wouldnt matter what was written on the flag.
This.
JonBostwick: If his flag is casting a detrimental amount of shade on your property then you would have case, but then you've just changed the goal posts. If shade was the conflict it wouldnt matter what was written on the flag.
Let's say that shade is the conflict, not the content on the flag. If the flag is raised 100 feet in the air, albeit still on his property, and casts shade on my house (which I dislike), would I be justified in calling for state intervention to coerce him into at least lowering the flag? Would that change your answer as opposed to the swastika flag example?
Instead of petitioning the government, consider turning the house into a Hebrew Temple
להרוג ובחסד
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
capitalist:a) In an an-cap society, wouldn't the kick be considered an act of aggression, while the running around with my genitals exposed be considered a non aggressive act of self-expression? I think the kicker would be at fault, not the nudist.
That's up to whoever owns the land the nudist is standing on to decide.
But even more basically than that, a flasher who is deliberately provoking his victim probably would deserve a kick.
Daniel: capitalist: thelion: If you show you genitals to someone who doesn't want them, won't he refuse to do business with you? Or worse, kick (!) you. a) In an an-cap society, wouldn't the kick be considered an act of aggression, while the running around with my genitals exposed be considered a non aggressive act of self-expression? I think the kicker would be at fault, not the nudist. b) For a pervert hiding his identity with a mask, the threat of people refusing to do business with him provides very little disincentive to discourage him from exposing himself to children Lol. Showing your penis to little kids is not "self-expression" if the owner of the property on which the act is made says it ain't so.
Let's say that such an offense occurs tomorrow on public land, not in a theoretical an cap society. Would calling for gov't intervention to coerce the man into covering up be just?
You could flash him back? Eye for an eye?
That probably wouldn't help with flashing. He'll probably like that....
Or just, kick him and pay a compensation. So long as you get more utility from kicking him, its OK. Gossen's answer.
Does anyone else find these the endless theoritcals and what-ifs tiring? This is all just useless speculation. We don't know what sort of order will arise from the initial chaos of an ancap society. The best we can do is hold true to basic principles, apply them the best we can, and see how it all turns out.
capitalist: JonBostwick: If his flag is casting a detrimental amount of shade on your property then you would have case, but then you've just changed the goal posts. If shade was the conflict it wouldnt matter what was written on the flag. Let's say that shade is the conflict, not the content on the flag. If the flag is raised 100 feet in the air, albeit still on his property, and casts shade on my house (which I dislike), would I be justified in calling for state intervention to coerce him into at least lowering the flag? Would that change your answer as opposed to the swastika flag example?
That's a much deeper question of the legitamacy of employing the state as an agent.
First, a person does have the right to sunlight or rainfall or stream water or other preexisting condition on his property (A person can't homestead up stream of a previous owner and dam up the stream, thats established common law). Second, typically involving state gunmen in a dispute is not a proportional response.
The optimal solution would involve direct dealings with the neighbor, second would be involment of civil law. I suppose a person could call in the local sheriff to resolve the matter if he was willing to take responsibility should the sheriff end up murdering the neighbor, though I'm not sure a sheriff would care until a court order was made (unless the flag was against local ordnance, maybe).
DarkCatalyst replied on 12-08-2009 9:00 PM
"Does anyone else find these the endless theoritcals and what-ifs tiring? This is all just useless speculation. We don't know what sort of order will arise from the initial chaos of an ancap society. The best we can do is hold true to basic principles, apply them the best we can, and see how it all turns out."
Economics is all about what-if's, however.
Its closer to symbolic logic, and then to discrete mathematics, than anything else.
capitalist: Daniel: capitalist: thelion: If you show you genitals to someone who doesn't want them, won't he refuse to do business with you? Or worse, kick (!) you. a) In an an-cap society, wouldn't the kick be considered an act of aggression, while the running around with my genitals exposed be considered a non aggressive act of self-expression? I think the kicker would be at fault, not the nudist. b) For a pervert hiding his identity with a mask, the threat of people refusing to do business with him provides very little disincentive to discourage him from exposing himself to children Lol. Showing your penis to little kids is not "self-expression" if the owner of the property on which the act is made says it ain't so. Let's say that such an offense occurs tomorrow on public land, not in a theoretical an cap society. Would calling for gov't intervention to coerce the man into covering up be just?
Why not do it yourself?
Daniel: Why not do it yourself?
How?
capitalist: Daniel: Why not do it yourself? How?
Another irony: We wouldn't be in this problem about public places if it wasn't for the state. That's another strike against the state. Lol.
Daniel: capitalist: Daniel: Why not do it yourself? How? Another irony: We wouldn't be in this problem about public places if it wasn't for the state. That's another strike against the state. Lol.
Agreed. I guess what I am trying to get at is how to live one's life as a true libertarian in an unfree nation. Is attempting to avoid public roads and schools virtuous, worthwhile, or even possible?
DarkCatalyst: Does anyone else find these the endless theoritcals and what-ifs tiring?
Does anyone else find these the endless theoritcals and what-ifs tiring?
No, its all been overshadowed by the growing consensus in this thread: wallowing in self-pity or someone offending your sense of aesthetics justifies roshamboing people.
E. R. Olovetto:I agree that "public" can be referred to rather as "stolen" for all we care. I don't see your point in using "unobtainable". A thing can be owned or not, and to own different things has different requirements (again, all I care to consider is the model of aprioristic libertarian law). What is unobtainable that has to do with property?
unobtainable is unable to be owned property, I was referring to his perceived ownership of sunlight...
capitalist: I am a blossoming anarcho-capitalist and my friend is a Huckabee-type republican. Today we were having a discussion about local governments and he asked me the following: "Let's say you have lived in a neighborhood for years and your next-door neighbor Jim (who just moved in a week ago) insists upon publicly expressing his anti-Semitic views. On his front yard he has erected a giant Nazi flag with a swastika symbol, he has 'Death to the Jews' painted in large, red letters all over his house, etc. You are have been trying to sell your house for months and since Jim has moved in you have noticed the price of your home has drastically dropped by X dollars, presumably due to his self-expression." Would it be unjust for me, a libertarian, to petition for government involvement in this conflict on the grounds that my neighbor has 'harmed' me by the amount of X dollars? In an anarco-capitalist society how would this problem be dealt with? I was at a loss for words and would appreciate the help of the forum. Thanks.
I am a blossoming anarcho-capitalist and my friend is a Huckabee-type republican. Today we were having a discussion about local governments and he asked me the following:
"Let's say you have lived in a neighborhood for years and your next-door neighbor Jim (who just moved in a week ago) insists upon publicly expressing his anti-Semitic views. On his front yard he has erected a giant Nazi flag with a swastika symbol, he has 'Death to the Jews' painted in large, red letters all over his house, etc. You are have been trying to sell your house for months and since Jim has moved in you have noticed the price of your home has drastically dropped by X dollars, presumably due to his self-expression."
Would it be unjust for me, a libertarian, to petition for government involvement in this conflict on the grounds that my neighbor has 'harmed' me by the amount of X dollars? In an anarco-capitalist society how would this problem be dealt with?
I was at a loss for words and would appreciate the help of the forum. Thanks.
How about this version:
Let's say you have lived in a neighborhood for years and your next-door neighbor Jim (who just moved in a week ago) is black. He sits on his front porch with his family (who are black) and listens to load music created by black musicians. You have been trying to sell your house for months and since Jim has moved in you have noticed the price of your home has drastically dropped by X dollars, presumably due to his race.
Would it be unjust for me, a libertarian, to petition for government involvement in this conflict on the grounds that my neighbor has 'harmed' me by the amount of X dollars?
Does that help clarify things?
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
capitalist:Agreed. I guess what I am trying to get at is how to live one's life as a true libertarian in an unfree nation. Is attempting to avoid public roads and schools virtuous, worthwhile, or even possible?
That is pointless, how to live ones life as a true libertarian in an unfree society is to convince people they are not really free and offer them your views on what would be free....
I would be remiss to not mention...
Be persuasive about it, please....
capitalist: Would it be unjust for me, a libertarian, to petition for government involvement in this conflict on the grounds that my neighbor has 'harmed' me by the amount of X dollars? In an anarco-capitalist society how would this problem be dealt with?
Do you think you have the right to impose your will on someone else because he utilized his property in a manner *breathe* that influenced the subjective valuations of others to your disliking? If you do then prepare to take a ride on the dreaded slippery slope of undesirable implications.
capitalist:Would it be unjust for me, a libertarian, to petition for government involvement in this conflict on the grounds that my neighbor has 'harmed' me by the amount of X dollars? In an anarco-capitalist society how would this problem be dealt with?
First, what is unjust for you, only you can know. It is all about how your actions level to your thinking.
Second, I really don't see how a sentence can hold "libertarian" and "petition for government involvement", unless the word "against" is in between.
Third, in an an-cap society your guy would never buy a house in a neighborhood that hasn't the same sick ideas as his, knowing perfectly that he would be ostracized.
And last, but not least, your example is a fallacy. If I choose to stay naked in my swimming pool on my property should my neighbor send a petition to the government because I am offending his prudishness?