Peter Friday, 07 March 2008 at 19:01

Libertarian: Do as you will and accept the consequences

All the while reserving the right to insist that your victim has no right to complain about suffering the consequemces. You just tell them that freedom isn’t easy and then party on.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 07 March 2008 at 20:37

No.

erp Saturday, 08 March 2008 at 07:34

No? A little less crypticosity please.

Peter Saturday, 08 March 2008 at 08:03

OK, AOG, I’ll bite. Give us some examples of behaviours that you think should be completely lawful on grounds of individual freedom, but which you see as noxious or harmful enough to merit sanctions (not just censure) from community, school, university, club, Church, sports team, employer, union, etc. I’m including civil law within the word “lawful”, so deceit doesn’t count all by itself.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 08 March 2008 at 08:48

erp;

• Consequences include effects on others.
• One always has the right to complain.
• The people being told to “freedom isn’t easy, party on” are those who are damaging themselves, not others.

Mr. Burnet;

The drunken debauchery described in this post. I think it should be considered lawful (they are legally adults), but strongly discouraged by social sanctions. In fact, I mentioned that at the time.

Peter Saturday, 08 March 2008 at 08:55

Yes, but you also expressed what I took to be opposition to supervisory measures. What social sanctions? Suspension or expulsion from the school? From the football team? From the frat? Surely you mean something more than everyone just clucking their disapproval.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 08 March 2008 at 09:51

Supervisory measures are pro-active enforcement, what you do to children and others not deemed capable of moral agency. Sanctions are post facto punishment, which is not quite the same thing. “Trust, but verify” might not be a bad turn of phrase in that regard. I see nothing wrong with the University requiring a minimum level of personal responsibility for members of University approved organziations (such as fraternities). Failure to achieve that level by members would mean revocation of University approval, which on most campus would entail other, more dire consequences.

And frankly, I think “everyone just clucking their disapproval” would actually make a difference, especially if, as erp claimed, much of this behavior is driven by desire for popularity. And more importantly, if we can’t get “everyone” to do even that, there’s no real possibility of greater sanction.

As for social sanctions, perhaps women who find this kind of behavior offensive could sanction the offenders by not attending their parties. You find me mystifying, but you mystify me when you manage to avoid considering this most basic and easily implemented, on the part of the “victims”, sanction.

Gronker Sunday, 09 March 2008 at 23:01

I see nothing wrong with the University requiring a minimum level of personal responsibility for members of University approved organziations (such as fraternities).

Sorry, but I do. Define “personal responsibility”. Who judges? Who arbitrates? Who chooses the judges? Who defines the terms like “personal responsibility”? Where are they documented? Did I have a chance to opt out?

Same arguement in the other thread works for me here. Sanctions, such as expulsion, have real and life long repercussions. Its too important to be allowed to be arbitrary and “fuzzy”.

Bret Monday, 10 March 2008 at 00:12

I think private and maybe public universities do have the right to define all of those things and make it part of the contract with the student for coming to the university. If the student doesn’t like it, he or she can certainly go elsewhere.

I would’ve certainly gone elsewhere.

Gronker Monday, 10 March 2008 at 06:08

I dont mind an upfront, mutual contract as long as it is specific and clear. However, using terms like “personal responsiblity” would not and could not work.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 10 March 2008 at 08:43

Heh. It’s not any more vague than many speech restrictions currently operating on campuses.

But yes, it should be spelled out more clearly in specific practice, but I was covering the general subject and therefore used a general description. Otherwise, Bret answered for me.

cjm Friday, 14 March 2008 at 13:53

all laws should be expressed in executable code