Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dondigitalia

Virginia's New Dress Code

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

It's not likely that I will ever enforce this kind of law on you, or anyone else for that matter, and I am a cop in VA.  Should you choose to assault an officer for this, well, that's your decision.  I would suggest you haven't fully thought out the possible consequences you actions will likely incur.  While it's a $50 fine to violate this fashion code, it's a felony to assault a police officer. 

I wish you the best, officer, but I for one question the morality of applying greater penalties to assailants of police than to assailants of other citizens. This strikes me as just another version of hate crime laws, which define Official Victims Groups, who get more government protection than Non-Official Victims Groups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One question: didn't this police officer initiate force against me when he ticketed me for a non-objective law?

I notice that nobody answered this question so far. Yet I see this:

In regard to initiating force against a police officer who enforces this law

Who said anyone was proposing to INITIATE force against a police officer? If the answer to the first question is "yes," then Rational_One would be using RETALIATORY force, and not INITIATING force.

Now, of course, RationalCop points out what happens in that scenario (a felony at least), and that it is not at all in one's self-interest to do so. But the distinction between initiated and retaliatory force is an important one that should not be lost in this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who said anyone was proposing to INITIATE force against a police officer? If the answer to the first question is "yes," then Rational_One would be using RETALIATORY force, and not INITIATING force.

I don't regard an officer's issue of a ticket as an initiation of force. A ticket does not necessarily mean that one will be forced to pay; it can be contested in a court of law. If one chooses to pay the ticket without contest, they are (implicitly) pleading guilty to the offense, and accepting punishment. If one does contest the ticket, and the court upholds the police officer's citation, it is an issue of the court using force against an individual, rather than the police officer, who, ultimately, did nothing more than bring legal charges against him.

Unless bringing charges against an individual (which that individual is free to accept or contest) is an initiation of force, then punching the police officer in the face as a response to the citation is not retaliatory.

Edited for grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless bringing charges against an individual (which that individual is free to accept or contest) is an initiation of force, then punching the police officer in the face as a response to the citation is not retaliatory.

Good answer. I hope you see the value of bringing all of that out in the open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In that case, what criteria are there for choosing one cultural norm over another?  I might be a nudist, but what basis is there for selecting my fashion tastes over another?  If there are none, why isn’t simple majority opinion as valid a guide as any other?  One might argue that dress codes ought to be as flexible as possible to maximize individual expression, but what standard is there for what is “flexible”?

As it stands now, there is only the subjective standard of society in general.

There is no objective standard for dress codes when private property is taken out of the equation. You must have the right to create a dress code. This right is not established by "public" ownership of property. The collective, as such, has no rights.

The owner(s) of the property decides the dress code on that property. And since nobody owns "public" property, nobody has a right to decide the dress code there. What usually ends up happening is that the group with the most guns (government) tells you what to wear on "public" property, under the threat of force.

In a free society there would be no "public" property, as others have pointed out. Land would be donated or leased to the government, in which case the owner or manager (government officials) would rightfully determine the dress code on government-owned or leased land. And if they wanted to be an effective government, they would create a dress code which any reasonable person could respect.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I notice that nobody answered this question so far. Yet I see this:

Who said anyone was proposing to INITIATE force against a police officer? If the answer to the first question is "yes," then Rational_One would be using RETALIATORY force, and not INITIATING force.

Now, of course, RationalCop points out what happens in that scenario (a felony at least), and that it is not at all in one's self-interest to do so. But the distinction between initiated and retaliatory force is an important one that should not be lost in this discussion.

Thank you Inspector my point exactly. I really wouldn't hit the cop anyway, but I'd be lieing if I said the thought wouldn't cross my mind. But I wouldn't be happy about it and I'd let him know that.

Here's another question then: How do we rationally guage when enough of these types of laws and regulations have been created that retalitory force against an unjust government and its agents, in this case police officers, is justified? I agree it is not yet, but when? How much erosion of liberties has to take place before this is fully justified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless bringing charges against an individual (which that individual is free to accept or contest) is an initiation of force, then punching the police officer in the face as a response to the citation is not retaliatory.

Edited for grammar.

Try and tell an officer that you refuse to accept his ticket on the basis that is given based on arbitrary and immoral law and see what happens to you. See if you are really free to make this choice as you claim.

If an officer charged me with an objective crime (which I would never commit) I could and would accept that, but that is NOT what we are speaking of here. These types of things happen to people over and over again in this country every day. When you question an officer about why he does these things his answer is invariably-- I'm just doing my job.

Doesn't this officer's job involve choice. Why would you choose to ticket someone not wearing a seatbelt or with sagging pants, or riding a motor cycle with no helmet. Why would they want to choose to enforce the immoral and arbitrary? That people here are defending the right of the government and its agents to do these things on the basis that we have free speach is what is insulting.

When an officer or any one else creates or enforces an unjust law they lose their moral high ground. Instead of being a protecter of rights they are now the chief violators of those rights. And any rational/moral person has the right to not accept their now irrational whims. They can rightly not accept the right of these corrupt forces to compel force of any kind on them.

Of course the government can still inprison them and a person must weigh this concern. But if it is the priciple of law we want to uphold the only ones that can be upheld are *objective*.

Sorry if I hurt anyones feelings. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are you all bashing at a law that so morally UPLIFTING? :)

Don't you want to protecte the very BACKbone of society?

Not bad; I guess as Objectivists we just like to protect our ASSets from others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree, but that's ok.

Well, in Virginia there is some truth behind what Rational One is saying. If a person refuses to sign a summons (which is not an admission of guilt but rather a promise to appear in court), that person becomes subject to physical arrest and can be taken before a magistrate for the initial charge(s). Refusing to sign or acept the summons is not in and of itself a seperate offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...