Nanny State? Oh no, of course not!

[Libertarian]

All right, I admit it. We libertarians are just plain paranoid when it comes to our ideas of government sticking its nose into the private affairs of its free citizens:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0930052nosex1.html

[TragicMonkey]

If I were the girl's lawyer, I would have demanded the judge be more specific on these bans. For the "no intercourse", does oral count? How about a handjob? Five bucks? Okay.

[delphi_ote]

If I were the girl's lawyer, I would have demanded the judge be more specific on these bans. For the "no intercourse", does oral count? How about a handjob? Five bucks? Okay.

BAD monkey! She's 17!!!

[TragicMonkey]

BAD monkey! She's 17!!!

I didn't realize judges could be so young.

[shecky]

I thought teen abstinance was supposed to be a virtue, not a punishment?

[Underemployed]

Are you saying virtues do not need to be enforced? For shame!

Let's have some more in-depth details on this one:

Was this 'agreement' an alternative to incarceration?

How is it intended to be enforced? What happens if the parole officer suspects her of having intercourse, will there be another court case to decide?

Otherwise, this whole deal seems to be far more in keeping with Libertarian ideals than just throwing the girl in prison. It's a voluntary agreement which she has signed of her own free will, notwithstanding the threat of jail if that is the case.

[CFLarsen]

Are you saying virtues do not need to be enforced? For shame!

Let's have some more in-depth details on this one:

Was this 'agreement' an alternative to incarceration?

How is it intended to be enforced? What happens if the parole officer suspects her of having intercourse, will there be another court case to decide?

Otherwise, this whole deal seems to be far more in keeping with Libertarian ideals than just throwing the girl in prison. It's a voluntary agreement which she has signed of her own free will, notwithstanding the threat of jail if that is the case.

Hehehe.....

[UserGoogol]

Although I don't like this, I'm not sure if it counts as a "nanny state" type action. The term "nanny state" seems to imply makings laws preventing people from doing things which harm only themselves. But this is a punishment, not a law. There is a very meaningful difference between restrictions on behavior to "protect" a person and restrictions on behavior to punish a person.

More to the point, when you're found guilty of a crime, you're not exactly a free citizen.

[Kerberos]

Although I don't like this, I'm not sure if it counts as a "nanny state" type action. The term "nanny state" seems to imply makings laws preventing people from doing things which harm only themselves. But this is a punishment, not a law. There is a very meaningful difference between restrictions on behavior to "protect" a person and restrictions on behavior to punish a person.

More to the point, when you're found guilty of a crime, you're not exactly a free citizen.
Also from what I heard in the Danish media this seems to be more of a case of one particuarly odd judge than a general trend. Nanny state would to me imply exactly that it was a general trend.

[Ian Osborne]

Also from what I heard in the Danish media this seems to be more of a case of one particuarly odd judge than a general trend. Nanny state would to me imply exactly that it was a general trend.

The Guardian UK newspaper said the same

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1584270,00.html

[TragicMonkey]

I'm more irritated by the anti-tattoo, anti-piercing views of the judge. Such things are purely ornament, of no relevance to the case in hand. I can understand that the curfew, and even the no-sex thing might be considered part of reforming the girl's character....but to forbid her tattoos and piercings suggests that such things are bad for one's character, which is a prejudice held by older generations. Tattooing and piercing is rather mainstream these days.

[Orwell]

All right, I admit it. We libertarians are just plain paranoid when it comes to our ideas of government sticking its nose into the private affairs of its free citizens:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0930052nosex1.html

I'm no libertarian, but even I agree that that's absurd.

[Charlie Monoxide]

And no faking orgasms as well ....

Charlie (1st message on new board) Monoxide

[CFLarsen]

Also from what I heard in the Danish media this seems to be more of a case of one particuarly odd judge than a general trend. Nanny state would to me imply exactly that it was a general trend.
The favorite Libertarian childrens' book: "Chicken Little" ("The Sky Is Falling!")....

[Ian Osborne]

I'm more irritated by the anti-tattoo, anti-piercing views of the judge. Such things are purely ornament, of no relevance to the case in hand. I can understand that the curfew, and even the no-sex thing might be considered part of reforming the girl's character....but to forbid her tattoos and piercings suggests that such things are bad for one's character, which is a prejudice held by older generations. Tattooing and piercing is rather mainstream these days.

I agree with your comments on tattoos and piercings not being a sign of bad character, but could it be that at 17 she's under-aged, and the judge wanted to bring her into line with age of consent laws? Just a thought...

[TragicMonkey]

I agree with your comments on tattoos and piercings not being a sign of bad character, but could it be that at 17 she's under-aged, and the judge wanted to bring her into line with age of consent laws? Just a thought...

Those laws vary by location.

Oddly enough, most places you can get pierced at 16, but not tattooed until 18.

[Libertarian]

The favorite Libertarian childrens' book: "Chicken Little" ("The Sky Is Falling!")....

I find it ironic that even liberals believe a woman's body is her own when she desires an abortion, but not her own if she wants to smoke a joint.

In this particular case, we have an "under age" citizen who did drugs. Why does that give the government the right to dictate what she does with her body? She can't get her ears pierced now??? This is definitely nanny state stuff, as the judge is imposing her own views on the actions and limits of this defendant. Have the parents been vaporized?

BTW, calling libertarians chicken littles shows a bit of ignorance.

At what point does one admit that the libertarians raise valid issues?? I can't put a fence around my house without government permission. If I lived a few blocks away, in the "historic" district, I couldn't PAINT my house without permission. As of today, I can have any number of children I want (since I'm not on probation for using drugs) but I cannot have as many spouses as I want, because it doesn't fit the government's idea of the judeo-xtian ethic. I can't drive on the highway without a license, even though I'm forced to pay for the highways with income taxes, forced to give money to the state when I bought the car (sales tax), and forced to pay for its maintenance whenever I buy gasoline (excise taxes). And oh yeah, I'm subject to random searches whenever big brother decides that setting up a roadblock is necessary.

But you're right on one thing: libertarians are related to fowl. But it's not chickens, it's more like canaries in a coal mine.

[UserGoogol]

Just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid. ^_^

But anyway, you're kind of conflating issues. This specific action is bad on many levels, but restricting someone's ability to have sex as a punishment for a crime isn't much worse than forcing someone to stay in jail. Perhaps cocaine possession shouldn't be a crime, but that's a different issue from whether it's appropriate to disallow a person to have sex as punishment for a crime. And of course, your criticisms of housing laws and driving regulations, although perhaps valid criticisms, have absolutely nothing to do with this story.

[Libertarian]

Just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid. ^_^

But anyway, you're kind of conflating issues. This specific action is bad on many levels, but restricting someone's ability to have sex as a punishment for a crime isn't much worse than forcing someone to stay in jail. Perhaps cocaine possession shouldn't be a crime, but that's a different issue from whether it's appropriate to disallow a person to have sex as punishment for a crime. And of course, your criticisms of housing laws and driving regulations, although perhaps valid criticisms, have absolutely nothing to do with this story.

Agreed. I was speaking more to CFL's "chicken little" comment.

But your (valid) point brings up another point: the girl's crime, even assuming that it should be a crime, has nothing to to with body piercings or intercourse. "Nanny state" is a perfect description of what is going on here.

[peptoabysmal]

All right, I admit it. We libertarians are just plain paranoid when it comes to our ideas of government sticking its nose into the private affairs of its free citizens:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0930052nosex1.html
Well, it's not exactly "cruel and unusual punishment" in the purest sense, since these are the terms of her probation. She could have the option of spending the rest of her sentence, right? This is something she agrees to in order to not be imprisoned in a "youth detention center."

[CFLarsen]

Libertarian,

I think your rant proved I was right about my "Chicken Little" comment. I'll just comment further on a few of your points.

I find it ironic that even liberals believe a woman's body is her own when she desires an abortion, but not her own if she wants to smoke a joint.

Can she commit suicide when she's pregnant?

In this particular case, we have an "under age" citizen who did drugs. Why does that give the government the right to dictate what she does with her body? She can't get her ears pierced now??? This is definitely nanny state stuff, as the judge is imposing her own views on the actions and limits of this defendant. Have the parents been vaporized?

I don't know, but it does seem as if her parents are not capable of looking after her properly. What do you suggest we do, then? Let her run rampant?

To prove that it was nanny state stuff, you would have to show that this was a general approach to youths with these problems. Your problem is that you can't - what you have is a runaway judge, whose decisions you take to be evidence of a nanny state.

That's why I use the "Chicken Little" analogy:. Perhaps I should have used the "Cry Wolf" instead. Because if you keep crying wolf every time something minuscule like this happens, who will listen to you when something really profound happens?

I can't put a fence around my house without government permission.

That is probably more a case of local zoning laws. Take it up with your local "government".

If I lived a few blocks away, in the "historic" district, I couldn't PAINT my house without permission.

That's true, and a good thing as well. Whether you like it or not, we should preserve historic buildings, and not allow people to turn them into whatever they pleased. Precisely the way you can't hold huge bonfires right next to houses with straw roofs, you can't put blinking Mickey Mouse signs on the house of Martin Luther King.

There are other considerations in the world than your desires.

As of today, I can have any number of children I want (since I'm not on probation for using drugs)

So you think that people on drugs can't have as many children as they want?

but I cannot have as many spouses as I want, because it doesn't fit the government's idea of the judeo-xtian ethic.

You cannot kill other people either, for the exact same reason. Is that bad?

Do you think your wife should be able to have as many husbands as she wants?

I can't drive on the highway without a license

No, and a good thing, too. How else am I - when I meet you in traffic - to know that you are capable of driving, and not ram a ton of metal into me?

even though I'm forced to pay for the highways with income taxes, forced to give money to the state when I bought the car (sales tax), and forced to pay for its maintenance whenever I buy gasoline (excise taxes).

Who else will pay for it? It is incredibly naive to think that a modern society can function without overall planning.

And oh yeah, I'm subject to random searches whenever big brother decides that setting up a roadblock is necessary.

See why I call it a rant? You went from a ban on piercings to the Patriot Act in no time flat. The true sign of a person with huge issues.

But you're right on one thing: libertarians are related to fowl. But it's not chickens, it's more like canaries in a coal mine.

More like headless Chicken Littles.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That is probably more a case of local zoning laws. Take it up with your local "government".

That's true, and a good thing as well. Whether you like it or not, we should preserve historic buildings, and not allow people to turn them into whatever they pleased. Precisely the way you can't hold huge bonfires right next to houses with straw roofs, you can't put blinking Mickey Mouse signs on the house of Martin Luther King.


This is exactly the reason people laugh at the Libertarian Party. Zoning laws are extremely, extremely, extremely easy to eliminate. How? Simply get your politicians elected to the zoning board, and they then vote to eliminate zoning laws. Easy, right? Well, except there is one teeny tiny problem - the Libertarian Loonies can't seem to win any meaningful elections. Why? Because people, for the most part, love zoning laws, and will elect politicians who will preserve them. This frustrates the hell out of the nuts. They simply can't understand why no one will listen to their rants.

[CFLarsen]

This is exactly the reason people laugh at the Libertarian Party. Zoning laws are extremely, extremely, extremely easy to eliminate. How? Simply get your politicians elected to the zoning board, and they then vote to eliminate zoning laws. Easy, right? Well, except there is one teeny tiny problem - the Libertarian Loonies can't seem to win any meaningful elections. Why? Because people, for the most part, love zoning laws, and will elect politicians who will preserve them. This frustrates the hell out of the nuts. They simply can't understand why no one will listen to their rants.

0% public support and dropping.

[Ed]

The term "nanny state" seems to imply makings laws preventing people from doing things which harm only themselves. .

I would add: micromanaging human behavior and interactions whose conduct is best left to the individuals involved.

[delphi_ote]

I find it ironic that even liberals believe a woman's body is her own when she desires an abortion, but not her own if she wants to smoke a joint.

I find it ironic that libertarians believe that everyone should be murdered at age 5 and fed to whales, but don't believe whales should be free to eat humans.

See how easy it is to make a point of view sound absurd if you just make things up?

[Libertarian]

CFL:

Licensing drivers keeps bad drivers off the road. And libertarians are considered Utopians!?!?!?

Murder and polygamy are at the same moral level. And libertarians are called chicken-littles???!!!


The fact that you cannot distinguish between VOLUNTARY actions between consenting adults and state-imposed edicts only proves my point that the state has gotten too large. That you cannot understand that a government powerful enough to outlaw polygamy is powerful enough to tell you how many children you can have shows your willful ignorance.

You may be happy with the way things are today, but someday the "wrong" people will be in control (according to you). Perhaps then, perhaps, you will see the difference between sovereignty of the state and the sovereignty of the indidvidual.

[Ian Osborne]

Licensing drivers keeps bad drivers off the road. And libertarians are considered Utopians!?!?!?

Yes, licensing keeps bad drivers off the road. Not every bad driver, true, but imagine how many more there would be if it wasn't for licensing.

Murder and polygamy are at the same moral level. And libertarians are called chicken-littles???!!!

No one said this.

[CFLarsen]

CFL:

Licensing drivers keeps bad drivers off the road. And libertarians are considered Utopians!?!?!?

Murder and polygamy are at the same moral level. And libertarians are called chicken-littles???!!!


The fact that you cannot distinguish between VOLUNTARY actions between consenting adults and state-imposed edicts only proves my point that the state has gotten too large. That you cannot understand that a government powerful enough to outlaw polygamy is powerful enough to tell you how many children you can have shows your willful ignorance.

You may be happy with the way things are today, but someday the "wrong" people will be in control (according to you). Perhaps then, perhaps, you will see the difference between sovereignty of the state and the sovereignty of the indidvidual.

And I thought that shanek was a Libertarian Gone Wild. It seems a genuine trait.

Now...

Can a woman commit suicide when she's pregnant?

What do you suggest we do about a girl with no parental control? Let her run rampant?

Do you have any evidence that the actions of the judge was a general approach to youths, or merely the actions of a runaway judge?

Do you acknowledge that there are other considerations in the world than your desires?

Do you think that people on drugs can't have as many children as they want?

Do you think it is bad that you cannot kill other people?

Do you think your wife should be able to have as many husbands as she wants?

If you don't have a license, how else am I - when I meet you in traffic - to know that you are capable of driving, and not ram a ton of metal into me?

If not the tax payers, who else will pay for public services?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

CFL:

Licensing drivers keeps bad drivers off the road. And libertarians are considered Utopians!?!?!?

Murder and polygamy are at the same moral level. And libertarians are called chicken-littles???!!!


The fact that you cannot distinguish between VOLUNTARY actions between consenting adults and state-imposed edicts only proves my point that the state has gotten too large. That you cannot understand that a government powerful enough to outlaw polygamy is powerful enough to tell you how many children you can have shows your willful ignorance.

You may be happy with the way things are today, but someday the "wrong" people will be in control (according to you). Perhaps then, perhaps, you will see the difference between sovereignty of the state and the sovereignty of the indidvidual.

Shanek...errrr...I mean "Libertarian"...It's interesting to note that you didn't address how easy it is to repeal zoning laws and my solution for it. I guess I hit a nerve, eh?

[Luke T.]

17 years old and looks 40 by the photo...

[Ian Osborne]

17 years old and looks 40 by the photo...

If you're referring to the photo in the article linked in the OP, that's the judge, not the defendant :D

[CFLarsen]

Why did this fall out of sight?

Oh, yeah. Libertaaaarian? Where aaaaaare you??