I Think He’s Confused
Feb 13
Over at Tennesseefree (and also at SayUncle), #9 has his talking points all mixed up:
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.
Hate to break it to him, but the “sonic devices” that Number 9 is complaining about have been sold, bought, and propagated exclusively through the free market. The “nanny state” government types are the ones who are trying to ban the devices. Basically, it is us (the modern liberals) who argue that businesses shouldn’t be able to get away with crap like this, and the government should step in to prevent that sort of nonsense. Libertarians are the ones who argue that the government takes away freedoms rather than protecting them, and that we should “let the market decide” and not worry about such nannyish regulation. Number 9, a self-identified libertarian type, is actually condemning something the market did, and siding with the government. The libertarian argument is that the business owners should have the right to drive off anyone they want with any sort of device they want.
I suspect that when he re-reads the story, and realizes what he’s done, he’ll change sides.
#1 by Number9 at February 13th, 2008
| Quote
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.
#2 by tgirsch at February 13th, 2008
| Quote
I think Muzak would be free market. … But causing pain, that’s not free market.
Umm, I think you just contradicted yourself.
But seriously, you’re arguing that a nuisance device — it doesn’t actually harm anyone — ought to be banned (by the government, no less). That’s not libertarian in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it’s reasonable.
#3 by SayUncle at February 13th, 2008
| Quote
‘it doesn’t actually harm anyone ‘
Like waterboarding?
#4 by tgirsch at February 13th, 2008
| Quote
The “if it doesn’t harm anyone, it shouldn’t be illegal” logic isn’t mine. That belongs to you libertarian types. Hell, Libertarians would probably argue that waterboarding is okay, too, as long as the state’s not the one doing it. Let the market decide whether or not it’s torture!
#5 by morris at February 13th, 2008
| Quote
“Let the market decide whether or not it’s torture!”
The annoying and unwanted teenagers have the right to leave the private property where they are being obnoxious.
#6 by Number9 at February 13th, 2008
| Quote
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.
#7 by tgirsch at February 13th, 2008
| Quote
Number9:
I am a Classical Democrat
What the hell is that? A Wallace Democrat?
I don’t see the free market argument.
What’s not to see? It’s not up to the government to decide what sort of devices store owners can and cannot use; banning the device would be tampering with the market, making it less “free.”
And just so I’m clear for everyone, I think the government can and should ban such devices. I just think these devices are a fine example of why lassez-faire ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Morris:
What if the device can be heard beyond the boundaries of the store owner’s property?
#8 by Number9 at February 13th, 2008
| Quote
Yeah, I wrote that wrong, I was thinking about something else.
Classical Democrat=Classical Liberal
#9 by Peter Hughes at February 13th, 2008
| Quote
Geez that’s confused.
I have my own issues with cameras, but cameras v police is a law and order issue, not an economic one that ’social democracy’ would have much say on.
“Citizens cannot own a gun or a knife for personal protection but criminals can.”
Just to start with, “cannot” and “can” seem to be being used in different senses here. Even leaving that aside though, how is this a ’social democracy’ issue? When will ‘classic liberal’ types realise that weapon control is not an interference / non-interference dichotomy? No-one would allow people to own nukes, so banning weapons is not per se impermissable. It’s just a question of where to draw the line.
As for sonic devices, you nailed it tgirsch. Moreover, again it has nothing to do with social democracy!
The evidence cited is very odd given the conclusions drawn.
#10 by LarryE at February 13th, 2008
| Quote
Aside from the valid points being made here, it is true that the UK engages in much more extensive surveillance, both public and private, or of you prefer, government-run and “free market”-promoted, than yet exists overall in the US.
#11 by tgirsch at February 13th, 2008
| Quote
LarryE:
That is indeed a valid point. The UK is turning into quite the surveillance society.
#12 by Morris at February 14th, 2008
| Quote
“What if the device can be heard beyond the boundaries of the store owner’s property?”
Was that a problem? I hadn’t heard about that.
#13 by tgirsch at February 14th, 2008
| Quote
The article doesn’t say one way or the other. But I didn’t realize that was relevant to the question. “What if” questions are generally pretty self-explanatory.
#14 by Morris at February 14th, 2008
| Quote
And my question is self-explanatory. You’re not the only one who has the ability to ask questions. What if you answered my question?
#15 by digglahhh at February 14th, 2008
| Quote
Ok, Morris.
Was it a problem? I don’t know.
But, presumably it would have the potential to be one. If the sound is just emitted into the air, it has equal capacity to be heard by offending and non-offending parties alike, no?
Doesn’t this come down to a “quality of life” issue? Sometimes kids (or adults) hang out on the corner(s) by me. Sometimes they’ll lean up, or even sit on a parked car. I park my car on the street.
Would I rather people not hang out on my car? Yes, of course.
Is it logical/acceptable/reasonable to program my car alarm so that it is perpetually going off in order to discourage people from shooting the shit while leaning up against my ride? Absofuckinglutely not!!
#16 by Mprris at February 14th, 2008
| Quote
“Was it a problem? I don’t know.”
Of course you don’t know. Not knowing has never stopped you before. I speculate that some way it was Bush’s fault. When Barack Hussein Obama becomes president we can have hope that all this will stop.
#17 by digglahhh at February 14th, 2008
| Quote
But you don’t fucking know either!!!
You’re a living, breathing spambot, son!
#18 by Morris at February 14th, 2008
| Quote
BTW, for those who get their panties in a wad when someone uses Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name, how do you like the fact that he was named after Mohammad’s magical flying horse, Burak? Is it offensive to use his first name too since it has a spiritual background?
#19 by Matt at February 18th, 2008
| Quote
Was he actually named for Mohammad’s horse, like that’s what his parents said when they named him or do Barak and Burak just have similar sounding names? Don’t forget there is also a Barak in the Christian/Jewish bible, read Judges chapter 4. Maybe he was named for that Barak?
Re the discussion, I don’t think store owners should be stopped from activating some sort of teenager repellent sound device so long as it is truly not harmful. If other people can hear it and they leave, well that’s the store owner’s problem if no one is shopping at their store…
#20 by digglahhh at February 18th, 2008
| Quote
How do you define “truly harmful?” Not trying to be an ardent deconstructionist, just asking.
Also, what if letting off those devices not only encourages people to leave your store, but the direct shopping area, hence having reverberating effects on businesses other than your own?
I go back to my hypothetical, since it doesn’t “truly harm anyone,” would it be cool if people left their car alarms going all day to prevent others from leaning against their vehicles?
#21 by Morris at February 19th, 2008
| Quote
“Was he actually named for Mohammad’s horse,”
I didn’t say he was named “for” Mohammad’s horse. Why do you make up stuff?
#22 by tgirsch at February 19th, 2008
| Quote
Morris:
Can’t help but notice that you’ve still artfully dodged the question. Quit being a coward and answer the question that was asked of you: What, if anything, should be done if the sonic devices affect people other than those on the business owner’s property? Please justify your answer.
#23 by Morris at February 20th, 2008
| Quote
“What, if anything, should be done if the sonic devices affect people other than those on the business owner’s property?”
The laws that apply to that situation should be enforced.
#24 by tgirsch at February 20th, 2008
| Quote
Such as?
#25 by Morris at February 21st, 2008
| Quote
“tgirsch writes:
Such as?”
I know a lot, but I’m not up on English law.