Sunday, August 25, 2013

Topless Women Marching To Times Square For Topless Day



Today is National Go Topless Day, "a celebration of women's legal right to bare their breasts in public." In NYC, topless women were hanging out in Bryant Park and Times Square all afternoon.

Please note: These bare breasted women are a bit confused. There is no "right" to bare breasts, it is entirely a question of property rights. From a libertarian perspective, one should be allowed to set whatever rules one wants on one's property relative to bare breasts. If a property is owned by a church, which doesn't want bare breasted women on its property, then so be it. If a strip club has no objections to bare breasted women, that is fine also.

As for public property, that is government controlled property, the property should be put into the hands of the private sector poste haste. What these protesters are really proving is that there is no property "of the people." You can't have it both ways, a bare breasted area that is also a sector where bare breasts are not allowed. Property is always controlled by some individual or group. Land that is part of the private sector recognizes this fact. "Public" property that belongs to everyone is a myth Rules on "public" property are set by those who have the most influence and the rules tend to be set across the board for all public property, as opposed to the private sector, which provides a broad spectrum of choices across the spectrum.

13 comments:

  1. "Rules on "public" property are set by those who have the most influence and the rules tend to be set across the board for all public property."

    I get what you're trying to say and am in agreement that the privatization of "public" lands would eliminate the need for such protests. However, there are rules in place on some "public" property ("public" parks for example) that allow men to go shirtless while other "public" spaces (such as courthouses) where men cannot.

    We currently have a public/private property dichotomy in place. These women believe that they should have the right to bare their tops in the same public spaces as men.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I enjoy keeping abreast of the whole property rights debate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i see what you did there

      Delete
  3. Here's a relevant article:

    "Human Rights" as Property Rights by Murray N. Rothbard
    http://mises.org/daily/2569

    Government doesn't have a right to control property BECAUSE there is no such thing as collective ownership, so yes, the government should stop prohibiting people from homesteading so-called "public property".

    Anyway, the most important part of this story is that it's not a sausage fest.

    #Boobies!!

    (Do these women actually think they are advancing a cause?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anonymous

      There is no such thing as collective ownership? What are you talking about? Ever heard of a co-op? Would you like to outlaw co-ops?

      Delete
    2. Co-ops are associations of people, not the land that co-ops live or work on.

      Contracts govern the terms of a trade, the fulfillment of which results in individual ownership of goods or services. They imply individual ownership of the things to be traded.

      You can contract with someone to behave a certain way on a certain property, but this has to do with individual ownership of one's labor, not with ownership of the property.

      Until the resources that the co-op is using, or a portion thereof, is claimed by a single individual, the resources remain a commons.

      The concept of collective ownership is nonsensical; The belief is that each person has a right to control what each other person does with a resource. This is self-contradictory.

      Delete
  4. Good Comment edward. It's also nice that you wrote this up, RW. I don't want the issue to be between "Church vs. Strip Club" as I don't want TopFreedom to be an issue of "Which shade of Socialism is best at describing an ideal TopFree environment?" You can find both arguments and it detracts from the issue.

    Until recently, the State presumed that a TopFree woman was a Threat, plain and simple. Now there are Burqas in Michigan and the question, most recently posed by Scalia in another matter, is, "When did this become a fundamental Constitutional Issue?" Does the Court have a Constitutional Opinion on whether a Youth Football may require a particular Offense for all teams? D P Moynihan, when noticing that the Supremes had approved one type of Government Aid to Private School funding for books but not another type of aid for a different type of book asked, "What about Atlases?"

    Good Libertarian Positions for all to argue but I'm with edward here. From the fact that a woman wants to walk around TopFree, it does not follow that this is a Death Threat to the State and its environs. If the Supreme Court can allow the "Actuarial Statistics" Clause of the Constitution to allow the Executive to enable Social Security, then it is certainly occupied with more pressing matters. TopFreedom works for the good of our Society. Ease up a little.

    http://www.tera.ca/

    CW

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's hard to imagine a society with no "public" property. Keep in mind in Rothbard's theory there is "unowned" property that would kind of be like public property. Within our current system, I oppose indecent exposure laws.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Technically, going topless in NY is legal. But for everywhere else, doing this shit not on your own private-property, should not be acceptable if it is against the accepted norms of the community at large.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I reside in public housing; specifically I reside in a public housing building; its what you refer to as "public property", operated by a local housing authority, which meets and implements Federal Housing Authority policy.

    Those residing here must comply with policies of diktat and schemes (action plans) of control.

    For example, there is a no smoking policy for all residents stating that there will be no smoking in one's room; all smoking done on the property must be done in the recently constructed outdoor smoking shelter located on an edge of the property.

    And for example, there is a no abusive language policy, whereby anyone causing a disturbance, can be found by the housing authority to be in violation of lease, and asked to vacate the premises.

    Needless to say, no one here goes around nude and no one protests; we all know such would be a lease violation.

    I get a rent subsidy of $400 a month that the public pays for; I pay $195 for a studio that Rent Metrics values at $595.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Calling it public property and sticking a gun in your face if you don't comply with diktats doesn't change the fact that the concept of "public property" is nonsensical:

      You Can Always Leave
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s

      Delete
  8. Never underestimate the power of women. They have half the money and all the honey...

    ReplyDelete