Freedom is just another word…for nothing left to lose
England is fast becoming the Orwellian nightmare that George Orwell prayed would never happen. It has now passed France as the one of the worst places for free people to live. In fact France is quickly changing and stepping away from the social democracy of the French past.
In England there are cameras everywhere and never a cop in sight. Citizens cannot own a gun or a knife for personal protection but criminals can. The insanity of social democracy has created criminal zones where the law abiding don’t stand a chance.
Now shop keepers are using sonic devices to drive away teenagers they don’t want as patrons.
There are people in America that believe this is the model for our country. They must be fought each and every time they try to take our liberties from us.
[…] Over at Tennesseefree, #9 has his talking points all mixed up: […]
I think Muzak would be free market. Or playing heavy metal to keep out squares. But causing pain, that’s not free market.
No mix up.
tgirsch, I know you see me as a libertarian, but I am a Classical Democrat. Which is a contemporary Conservative. There is some small L in there. I think most Conservatives have some small L.
I think what most people miss is that this device affects the hearing of any person that can hear it. I don’t see the free market argument. If I am in that store I hear it when the store owner buzzes some undesirable kid. What about the kids that are not undesirable?
Too much collateral damage. Too slippery slope.
Classical Democrat=Classical Liberal
So instead of sonic devices, make it cigarette smoking. How does that fundamentally change the argument?
Same argument with cologne. The difference is intent. The sonic device borders on a petite assault. It also is not targeted only to the individual. Others are caught in the fallout.
Here is where we probably part ways. This sonic device would be fine as a defensive weapon like a stun gun. The intent there would be acceptable. But it would have to be more powerful to be useful.
The military has large scale sonic devices that repeal crowds by using microwave energy. They cause a burning sensation without actually burning the skin.
Slippery slope. I like the old days. Get the hell out or I will call the cops. But there are no more cops. They have been replaced by cameras. Technology is not always the answer.
The military has large scale sonic devices that repeal crowds by using microwave energy. They cause a burning sensation without actually burning the skin.
That ain’t sonic. Sonic = sound; microwave = radio wave energy.
.
The difference is intent.
That’s pretty nuanced for a “classical liberal” type.
Others are caught in the fallout.
How is that not true of second-hand smoke?
How is that not true of second-hand smoke?
Is it the intent of the smoker to harm the second party?
I don’t see where it’s the intent of UK shop owners to harm anyone, either.
What’s a little waterboarding between consenting adults, anyway?
.
I don’t see where it’s the intent of UK shop owners to harm anyone, either.
So now you support this?
First we start out with something just annoying, like fingernails on a chalk board. The next version of the device is a little stronger. The third version can drop someone to their knees.
How about someone makes a low voltage stun gun? Just enough to get your attention. Shop owners can shock shoplifters?
So now you support this?
How does that follow? Answer: It doesn’t. You were the one who said it was “about intent,” not me. Restaurant owners who allow smoking don’t intend to harm their non-smoking customers, they just want to appeal to the smoker demographic; UK shop owners don’t intend to harm youth, they just want to appeal to an older clientèle by discouraging “undesirable” young customers/passersby from coming in and/or loitering. In both cases, classical liberalism would argue that those owners have a right to do exactly that, and that those who are turned off or offended by such actions are free to refrain from doing business in those establishments.
As I’ve said before, I’d be all in favor of banning such devices, because that’s the type of thing that we modern liberals generally agree ought to be regulated. But what I believe isn’t at issue here. Your position on this issue is in conflict with your self-described “classical liberal” philosophy. That’s all I’m saying. You’re actually taking my side on this issue: things that business owners do which affect others are no longer strictly in the realm of “personal freedom,” and are thus open to government regulation.
Your position on this issue is in conflict with your self-described “classical liberal” philosophy.
I don’t see how. I think you are confusing “classical liberal” with LLLLL very Big L Libertarian.
There has to be some government. But not a Leviathan. All over the world governments are too big and way too intrusive.
If this was a weapon for self defense I would be fine with it. But to be used to shoo kids out of a store it is too much.
[…] Then abuse their rights. They do it in England, so it must be okay. […]