Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Anarchy, State, and Nudetopia
As if the Kansas Libertarian Party doesn't have enough problems, they're getting squeezed for this?
TOPEKA - Kansas Libertarians were stopped from holding a fundraiser at a nudist camp in southwest Shawnee County when sheriff's deputies blocked people from entering.
Shawnee County deputies said they were merely enforcing a court order when they stopped people from accessing Lake Edun on Friday. Last year, Shawnee County District Judge Terry Bullock issued a court order banning "commercial or recreational activities" on the property unless the owners get a permit for such events -- something the county refuses to provide.
But Rob Hodgkinson, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Kansas, said a political party fundraiser isn't a commercial activity. He also said the deputies suppressed party members' constitutional right to hold such an event on private property.
Party chairman argues that the scuttled fundraiser will cost the party funds it needed to make a serious showing this year; someone who knows more about Kansas than me could explain whether the hundreds of dollars raised from this fundraiser would outstrip the negative publicity in areas where KS Libertarians could actually compete. If you're feeling sympathetic, their website is here.
|7.10.06 @ 11:06AM|#
Negative publicity? Are you kidding?
"Libertarians meet in the nude, Maude? Hell, I've been a
Libertarian every time we get into a hotel room, then!"
I've said it before - libertarians are the only political movement
that's truly friendly to the idea of sexuality. Conservatives, in
their heart of hearts, fear that anything remotely sexual is sin,
and liberals, deep down, are afraid that anything sexual is
rape.
Libertarians like sex, and aren't afraid to say so.
The Wine Commonsewer|7.10.06 @ 11:18AM|#
Frankly, I am surprised that there are any libertarians at all
in Kansas, much less nudists.
The older I get the more apparent it becomes that the LP and
libertarians in general do an awful lot of weenie waving (smirks)
which is generally dismissed as fringe weenie waving by
most people who have jobs and families. Assuming that they ever
even hear about it that is.
|7.10.06 @ 11:20AM|#
I predict Kansas will be the first state to outlaw
libertarianism, or at least have it legally branded as a cult. It
may also get catagorized as a "political disorder."
There's a nudist colony in Kansas?
|7.10.06 @ 11:28AM|#
Should I go ahead and make a joke about libertarian gatherings
being sausage-fests, or wait?
I live near Kansas (disturbingly near) and I must say that my first
thought had nothing to do with the political consequences of
holding a meeting at a nudist camp and everything to do with how
many mosquitoes, chiggers, and other biting things are around
during Midwest summers.
|7.10.06 @ 11:36AM|#
This sounds like a good idea.
Just like nude beaches sound like a good idea.
Right up until you realize that there's some shameless putz out
there who's willing to flaunt his beergut and willie whilst wearing
flip-flops and socks.
This is, quite frankly, stupid. Not as stupid as the idjit who was
quaffing collodial silver, but stupid nonetheless.
Disclaimer:
Just because I wouldn't go to a nude political fundraiser doesn't
mean that I agree with the state intervening in it.
*takes a drink*
|7.10.06 @ 11:37AM|#
I would be up for an event like that......
I approve this message and this ad was paid for by "the little blue
pill".....
Is that a voting lever or are you glad to see me?.....
No, no, no, you must be looking for the Kansas Scientologists party
down the street, we aren't freaks like them......
AND FINALLY:
Mr. Dole? What the hell are you doing here?...
There, I feel better now that I got those of my chest.
Mike Laursen|7.10.06 @ 11:59AM|#
I dunno. As a libertarian, I don't like at all the thought of conservatives having sex. Very disturbing.
Warren|7.10.06 @ 12:13PM|#
Ha ha ha, yes good, very funny. Oh how droll, it is to
laugh.
But there is a serious point here. Am I the only one who's more
than a little horrified at law enforcement being used this
way?
County District Judge Terry Bullock issued a court order
banning "commercial or recreational activities" on
the [private] property unless the owners get a permit for such
events.
emphasis and clarification mine
It's more than just the wind off the lake that is sending chills
down my spine.
|7.10.06 @ 12:22PM|#
What's really sad is that I didn't know about this fundraiser
until I read it on Hit and Run.
And I am in libertarian in Kansas.
|7.10.06 @ 12:31PM|#
Warren-most of us suffer from outrage fatigue. It's just easier to view the whole thing as an amusing farce.
|7.10.06 @ 12:32PM|#
recreational activities
I think that's Kansas-speak for sex. If they don't put a stop to it
on private property, next thing you know, there's rampant
lesbianism in high school bathrooms.
Or maybe that was Oklahoma. What does it matter.
|7.10.06 @ 12:46PM|#
Remind me again: have the terrorists won when nudists CAN vote?
Or when they can't?
I saw the part about "recreational activities" too- but I was
trying to pretend I hadn't.
|7.10.06 @ 1:09PM|#
My back yard that abuts a day-care is private property, and I
don't think I should be allowed to have 600 nude dudes standing out
there eating bar-b-q and waxing poetic about legalizing pot.
The dreaded 'court order' to stop this event doesn't seem like the
end of the world to me. But, of course, that makes me a raging
imbecilic conservative.
|7.10.06 @ 1:13PM|#
Libertarians like sex, and aren't afraid to say
so.
umm well this might be a bit embarsining but to be honest....
lets just say i don't want my money being spent stopping other
people from having sex...OK?
|7.10.06 @ 1:19PM|#
If you want to hold a nude party outdoors, can I interest you on some Avon Skin-So-Soft bug repellents with SPF 30?
|7.10.06 @ 2:30PM|#
"Camp Edun" is a whole lot better than what I thought it would be........."Camp Eatin"
Warren|7.10.06 @ 2:31PM|#
Huh,
HUH!? What are you saying? It's for the children!?!? You are
absolutely a raging imbecilic something-or-other if you don't care
about your own property rights. Or is it that you just don't mind
the state stripping (hee - double entendre) you of the rights you
had no intention of exercising. In which case, it's perfectly all
right to put the jack-boot heal to the throats of those who would,
right?
|7.10.06 @ 2:46PM|#
I kinda wish I had your attitude because I would always be
right. Oddly, I do agree with you, until those pesky facts get in
the way.
The fact of the matter is, although my backyard is private
property, I shouldn't be able to have 600 dicks sticking through
the chain link fence if I abut a day-care, a church, or your
grandmother's house.
So, if that is the case, yes, I'm doing it for the children, god,
and you and your grandma.
Warren|7.10.06 @ 2:58PM|#
I kinda wish I had your attitude because I would always be
right. Oddly I don't agree with you at all because those pesky
facts get in the way.
The fact of the matter is, the day-care has every bit the right to
do with their property as you do with yours. The right to build a
brick wall around their lot to keep the little tykes from being
traumatized by the dicks you hang out with, for instance.
Same goes for god and your grandma.
|7.10.06 @ 3:09PM|#
Everything is black and white, except for that shade of grey
that is everywhere.
Let's take the dicks out of it for a minute. Since it is 'my'
property, do I have the right to use it as a trash dump for
profit?
|7.10.06 @ 3:28PM|#
"Since it is 'my' property, do I have the right to use it as a
trash dump for profit?"
YES! For the love of God, YES! But, your neighbors' property rights
would include the ability to demand restitution for any loss of use
or value resulting from odors, truck traffic, proximity, etc.
|7.10.06 @ 3:29PM|#
Why would you want to turn your yard into a dump when the garbage of statism already fills your head?
|7.10.06 @ 3:33PM|#
Of course, Huh, you have a perfect right to site a trash dump on
your profit.
Just internalize those negative externalities, baby.
Warren|7.10.06 @ 3:36PM|#
Umm Sure, as long as you're not polluting my property.
But allow me to concede your point that when pressed you can find a
regulation I approve of. But why do I think that when you find it
you are going to pounce and say "Ah HA! You make an exception to
the rule - therefore you concede that I can make any regulation I
want. BWAH Ha ha ha!"
Property rights are high on the list of priorities. They should be
held inviolate save only to preserve other more sacrosanct rights.
Sparing the neighbors the sight of beer guts, pubic hair, and
cottage cheese thighs, does not even come close to rising to that
level.
|7.10.06 @ 3:38PM|#
I'm just trying to figure this all out. Bear with me. You guys
honestly think that your neighbor ought to be able to use his
property for ANYTHING? No zoning is reasonable zoning?
What would you really do if your neighbor received a variance to
open a convenience store next door to your brick ranch in the
suburbs? seriously. Don't give me this "I would move," or "I would
put up a fence" shit. If your neighbor went to council to get a
variance to put up a dry cleaner, or a pig farm, or whatever, you
would go down to City Hall and fight it tooth and nail.
|7.10.06 @ 3:46PM|#
Sparing the neighbors the sight of beer guts, pubic hair,
and cottage cheese thighs, does not even come close to rising to
that level.
I'm just trying to find that sacrosanct level. Not for sinister
purposes, I'm just curious.
Warren|7.10.06 @ 3:53PM|#
If your neighbor went to council to get a variance to put up
a dry cleaner, or a pig farm, or whatever, you would go down to
City Hall and fight it tooth and nail.
Your gosh darned toot'n we would. What the fuck is City Hall doing
handing out special license to my neighbor with a "variance" for?
Because they they're corrupt that�s why. Why should he be allowed
to do what the rest of us can't? If he gets his variance, he'll get
it by paying for it in cash. That's why he needs a variance in the
first place. Regulations don't stop people from doing stuff they
just funnel wealth out of the market and into the pockets of
tyrants.
|7.10.06 @ 3:53PM|#
If your neighbor went to council to get a variance to put up a dry cleaner, or a pig farm, or whatever, you would go down to City Hall and fight it tooth and nail.
Wrong. It's called principle. Look it up sometime; you're clearly
not acquainted with the concept.
|7.10.06 @ 4:00PM|#
Whoa, whoa, whoa, there big fella. Take it easy Mr. Hands. You think it is ok to have 600 dicks sticking thru a chain link fence that abuts a sunday school daycare for disabled sexually abused children, then you call ME unprincipled? wow.
|7.10.06 @ 4:04PM|#
Warren, are any zoning regulations appropriate? Its not a trap, I think it is a legitimate debate.
Warren|7.10.06 @ 4:04PM|#
I'm just trying to find that sacrosanct level. Not for
sinister purposes, I'm just curious.
I speak only for myself here.
I would put limits on the level of noise you can generate.
The odor from that landfill would also make my list.
Also health and safety regulations, It's no nevermind to me if you
live like a pig. But If your property is crawling with rats and
other vermin, I don't have a problem with having it
condemned.
Now out on the thin ice... Lot's of folks around here think that
there should be nothing to stop you from taking you're bar topless
or installing a few slot machines. I am inclined to support that
position. However, I am not unsympathetic to the argument, that
where strip-clubs and casinos have been allowed to move in, crime
rates increase. No firm stance here, just saying.
Warren|7.10.06 @ 4:17PM|#
Warren, are any zoning regulations appropriate?
The word zoning is a red flag. Zoning as we know it today is a
totally corrupt system. I would not allow any zoning
regulations.
Again speaking only for myself.
I have less of a problem when the regulating authority is more
local. Housing associations should be allowed to pass any damned
silly regulation they want. A village or township usually doesn't
get my panties in a wad even though they make a lot of oppressive
laws. I get more worked up over big city regs. Even more so over
county wide deprivation of liberty. State laws are a very serious
matter, and the Feds cracking down on sick people smoking pot grown
in their own back yard, is but a step from imperialism.
|7.10.06 @ 4:21PM|#
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping as many rights as
possible, but I just happen to believe that regulating nudist
colonies ranks up there with regulating noise and odor.
*Disclaimer* I understand that position makes me a statist, an
imbecile, and "clearly" unprincipled (there is no need to confirm).
However I'm open to other insults.... I wouldn't want to hinder
anyone's sacred right to call me a dumbass in their own, pithy
manner.
Warren|7.10.06 @ 4:29PM|#
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping as many rights as
possible, but I just happen to believe that regulating nudist
colonies ranks up there with regulating noise and odor.
How can you possible justify that statement, you farging icehole?
Pull down your shades, plant some shrubs, put up a fence and my
nudists friends won't intrude on you in the least.
|7.10.06 @ 4:34PM|#
Variance? What's that? Why should I have to ask permission from
a bunch of buttinskis down at the Nannytariat every time I want to
do something?
Where's the line?
Outdoor nekkidniss, ooh, that's no good.
Smelly garbage, that's no good.
Ooh, that's a big scary doggy- no good.
Too many cats- no good.
Ugly, unapproved color on your garage door- no good.
The siding on your house is VINYL? Ooh, ick-no good.
That car is HOW MANY years old? That's having an adverse effect on
my property values- no good.
What do you mean, you'd rather work from your home, instead of
driving seventy-five miles to work each way?
You're going to add a porch to the front of your house? And do the
work yourself?
Your wife is WHAT? How many of those snot- nosed little rugrats are
you planning to fill MY neighborhood with, anyway?
Are you sure you're really an American? I don't want any greasy
foreigners adversely impacting my property value.
Get the picture, HUH? People like you are intensely irksome to
people like me. Having said that, I believe that private
individuals who wish to enter into binding contracts with their
neighbors should be allowed to do so.
|7.10.06 @ 4:35PM|#
You think it is ok to have 600 dicks sticking thru a chain link fence
Stick your dick through my fence, and that's tresspass;
I've a nice sharp machete for just such cases. Keep 'em on your
side of the fence, though, and it's your own business.
If my daycare for sexually-sensitive little zealots needs to be
shielded from your dickdance, it's my responsibility to provide the
shielding. (I might be able to make a case for "negative
externalities," but your case -- the corrosive effects of my
daycare's education on the community -- would probably outweigh
mine. In the interests of amity, I'd simply build a proper fence,
such as you typically see around any daycare.)
Next?
|7.10.06 @ 4:35PM|#
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping as many rights as
possible, but I just happen to believe that regulating nudist
colonies ranks up there with regulating noise and odor.
I think a lot of that has a lot to do with who was there first. If
the church decides to put in the daycare, despite the fact that I
have naked hot dog cookouts, they have no business telling me to
stop.
On the other hand, if I move in next door to an existing church or
day care, then I'm responsible for putting up a privacy fence so my
Sunday afternoon sausage fest doesn't offend (or tempt) the
flock.
|7.10.06 @ 4:41PM|#
Anyways, the article is not about zoning for a nudist colony. The article is about not allowing a political fundraiser at an approved nudist colony. That cannot be justified, even if you want to save the children.
|7.10.06 @ 4:44PM|#
cool, we've added icehole, irksome (intensely at that), and my
favorite..... Dances with Dicks (or a variation of).
This may be a H&R first, but, I may have changed my mind on the
nudist colonly deal (publically, no less). You freaks can have the
little nudist colonies you want and desire so badly, I won't try to
regulate them.
|7.10.06 @ 5:00PM|#
There is a gray area to contend with here. At what point is something a nuisance, in the legal sense? It's worth noting, too, that nuisance law generally gives some weight to who was there first. If there's a daycare whose business is destroyed by a nudist colony opening up next door with no walls, that might be actionable.
|7.10.06 @ 5:04PM|#
"Anyways, the article is not about zoning for a nudist colony.
The article is about not allowing a political fundraiser at an
approved nudist colony. That cannot be justified, even if you want
to save the children."
Thank you, Reformed Republican; as you quite helpfully point out,
the issue is not zoning, but another attempt by entrenched
incumbent politicians to deter and deflect any challenge to their
power.
Even more reprehensible than imposing dopey rules and restrictions
on nudists and other, fully clothed, property owners.
|7.10.06 @ 5:30PM|#
PL,
In your example, the daycare would have rights to claim a loss of
business and monetary damages from the nudists. This is solved very
easily in the civil system. Zoning ordinance violations are not
civil but criminal in nature. They are a fine for not asking
permission from the gubmint to do something with your
property.
If I build a pig farm in the middle of an upper middle class
neighborhood and property values plummet I am likewise liable for
damages. No zoning necessary.
|7.10.06 @ 5:37PM|#
Yeah, I have a definite preference for nuisance claims over zoning, though the reality of trying to get something resembling justice or actual results in court gives me pause. Is zoning necessarily a problem, or is it a problem because of the political nonsense tied to it in practice? If you had neither zoning nor nuisance law, then you'd have self help, which is usually not a good idea.
|7.10.06 @ 5:47PM|#
"You freaks can have the little nudist colonies you want and
desire so badly, I won't try to regulate them."
Please feel free to point out where these nudists were displaying
themselves to minors, churchgoers, God, or my Grandma.
If you can do that, I might just give you a cookie.
|7.10.06 @ 6:12PM|#
Please feel free to point out where these nudists were
displaying themselves to minors, churchgoers, God, or my
Grandma.
Please feel free to find the joke in my statement.
|7.10.06 @ 6:19PM|#
PL,
Agreed. I guess the question is, which system is less corruptible?
Zoning laws and "variances" or Civil Court Judges and Juries?
Personally I am willing to place my faith in 12 peers and one
elected county judge instead of an appointed board of zoning but I
can see how your mileage my vary.
|7.10.06 @ 6:22PM|#
If I build a pig farm in the middle of an upper middle class
neighborhood and property values plummet I am likewise liable for
damages. No zoning necessary.
while i agree this is true, i believe a function of zoning
regulations is to provide for a reasonable standard by which one
can operate on their property without flooding the courts with
everyone's complaints against their neighbors.
there is a flip side to zoning regs being used to keep people from
using their property as they please - they can also serve the
purpose of protecting you from others who take issue with your use
of your property. (ex: you can't keep me from operating business X
because i'm compliant with the local zoning ordinances)
not saying it's right one way or the other, i'm just saying. hate
to hit and, well, run, but i've gotta.
|7.10.06 @ 6:23PM|#
"Please feel free to find the joke in my
statement."
You'll excuse me if I don't find the thought of 600 men waving
their genitalia at children neither appealing or funny.
|7.10.06 @ 6:36PM|#
Please submit a list of things you personally find appealing,
funny, and relevant so that I don't hurt your delicate
sensibilities in the future.
I thank you in advance for your consideration.
|7.10.06 @ 6:48PM|#
Sure, dude. Whatever.
You presented an utterly preposterous scenario in an attempt to
gall the other posters here into either taking a hardline
pro-property-rights stance or to agree that government regulation
is a good thing.
Then you got your ass handed to you, and now "Oh, hey fellas, can't
you see that I was just jokin'?"
|7.10.06 @ 6:53PM|#
First I was accused of having my dick in my hands, now my ass.
You are one sick freak.
Frankly, the thought of asses being handed to people is neither
appealing or funny.....dude.
Warren|7.10.06 @ 6:56PM|#
If I build a pig farm in the middle of an upper middle class
neighborhood and property values plummet I am likewise liable for
damages.
Swing and a miss. There's no way that passes libertarian muster. If
your property value plummets, there's no way you can determine how
much is due to my pig farm and how much is due to the 87 Chevy that
ner'-do-well punk kid of yours has leaking oil half way down the
block. Furthermore, how is my pig farm any different than those
Negroes that bought the old Simmons place and now half the property
in the neighborhood is sport'n the Re/Max logo?
I'm all in favor of holding people accountable for damages, but
they have to be real, measurable, damages.
The Wine Commonsewer|7.10.06 @ 6:57PM|#
Huh? open to other insults yer making me laugh even
though I agree with Warren.
And whoever wants to build a pig farm in Bel Air is nutty. You
could never afford the land and who'd want to tear down a multi
million dollar house? Except maybe some Hollywierd starlet.
For the record, I once sold a house with a beautiful oak tree. I
inserted a condition into the deed that the tree could never be cut
down. That, my friends, is how you control the riff raff without
the heavy and overly broad hand of government.
|7.10.06 @ 7:01PM|#
"You are one sick freak."
50% witty.
"Frankly, the thought of asses being handed to people is
neither appealing or funny.....dude."
Hey, if it was my ass being handed to me in a debate on TEH
INTERNETS, I wouldn't find it appealing or funny, either.
|7.10.06 @ 7:06PM|#
You win sir....you are a Master Debater. (there is the other 50%
wit, that's all I got)
What is TEH anyway?
|7.10.06 @ 7:08PM|#
Oh Christ.
Do I actually have to educate you on one of the post pervasive
internet memes of all time?
No.
Because you can use Google.
Cheerio, I'm off for the night.
|7.10.06 @ 7:10PM|#
By the way, I don't mind my 'ass being handed to me' in a debate every now and then. Actually, I like being proved wrong on occasion. It keeps me humble, you?
|7.10.06 @ 7:24PM|#
I googled TEH. I was proved wrong twice in one thread.....Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
|7.10.06 @ 7:45PM|#
Warren,
Okay, if my example doesn't pass muster for you, then what does?
What are the other options to prevent me from building my pig farm?
You espouse that zoning laws are appropriate to prevent my pig farm
on the grounds that it is noisy and odoriferous but you claim that
you cannot prove damages resulting from it? How can you claim that
it is okay to prevent me from doing what I want with my property if
it doesn't harm you in any way? I am not saying that a pig farm in
Bel-Air is a good idea but if I were to build it you could most
definately demonstrate a marked decline in the value of the
surrounding property based on surrounding area's market
performance, resale pricing of houses in the neighborhood, etc.
|7.10.06 @ 8:20PM|#
Some people are afraid of the slippery slope argument. They are
afraid to draw a line because they are afraid the line will be
moved. Well, there are lines that need to be drawn. You know it, I
know it. We draw lines (for good reasons and bad) everyday. That is
why the whacked out Libertarians lose elections every time (damn
near literally). They spend too much time talking about how things
SHOULD be, rather than focusing how things CAN be.
No zoning for anything (if you even SUGGEST tiddy bars be banned
from being next a residential house, you are Stalin)
All drugs should be legal (if you even SUGGEST you can't have a
working meth lab next to a daycare, you are Pat Robertson)
No Capitalism should be regulated (if you even SUGGEST different
Power companies shouldn't be able to lay all of the power lines
they want and compete in an open market, you are a statist)
Libertarians, add all of those up, plus a couple more ridiculous
extremes, and look at your election winning record. It's a shame
too, because you could win if you got real.
|7.10.06 @ 10:44PM|#
Sparing the neighbors the sight....
As TWC mentioned above, deed covenants can cover many of the
adverse effects of the neighbors' use of their property. When my
folks retired, they bought a house in a nice development on the
West Coast of Florida. It wasn't a gated community, and there was
no homeowners association making nitpicky rules, but the deed came
with several restrictions (ex: no commercial vehicles parked on the
driveway except when actually making a service call. Garaging one
was OK.) that the developer had included in the original terms of
sale.
Of course, on the opposite side of the state road from these fine
houses were:
1.) A convenience store with gas pumps.
2.) Behind a stand of trees, a trailer park.
3.) Next to the TP, a cemetery.
A little further down the road was a set of baseball diamonds owned
by an American League team for spring training and rookie league.
The actual stadium was a half-mile further, in the town
proper.
On the other end of the street were courts for basketball and
tennis, put in at the developer's expense. I think he donated those
to the local municipality, but they could have been privately
owned, as they were meant for residents to use. Past another stand
of trees were the local freeway, complete with strip-malls and what
we now call "big boxes." Once on that drag, it was a short drive to
the regional shopping mall. I used to bicycle there in 5
minutes.
I have no idea how much of this mixed use was determined by zoning,
and how much by private agreements, but some of it was due to the
private route, and the heavens did not fall.
Private covenants get a bad rap, because in Jim Crow days they were
often tools for segregation, especially in areas where that wasn't
de jure policy. The state or federal court system,
however, is under no obligation to enforce agreements based upon
invidious discrimination. I would have loved to have been a judge
handed a deed like that, claiming that there was such a thing as a
"white race" and a "colored" one. "Race? There's only one race, the
human race. Case dismissed."
Kevin
|7.11.06 @ 12:05AM|#
for the children, bro, for the children...
Ah, one can only wonder what Ambrose Bierce would've made of
that.
|7.11.06 @ 8:17AM|#
Private covenants do the exact same thing zoning and HOA regulations do, they take possibilities away from rightful land owners. All should be looked upon with the same distain. If I bought that house with the 'oak tree' covenant, the split second I thought that tree was making my life difficult, I'd cut the bitch down. Sue me.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245