Virginia's New Dress Code

[dondigitalia]

The state of Virginia has now passed a dress code.

I'm sure most of us have noticed, over the past few years, the trend of people wearing pants that ride very low on the hips, allowing underwear to show above the pant line. Both men and women do this; the men typically wear boxer shorts, and the women usually have a thong.

Virginia has outlawed this fashion trend. Anyone caught violating this dress code in public is to be fined $50.

Being a resident of Virginia, I am outraged by this! Granted, I do think that the individuals who dress like this, look ridiculous, and don't conform to this trend myself, but is it really the place of the government to dictate how an individual should present themselves to the world? Of course not! Judgments of this kind are in reference to a person's character, and the law has no business getting involved here.

[Inspector]

The very idea that such a law could be passed in The United States of America is frightening and sickening to me.

[dondigitalia]

Here is a link to the CNN article.

[Tom Robinson]

The state of Virginia has now passed a dress code.

That a small group of men and women can regulate the dress code of millions of people is the consequence of widespread "public" property. In a society of 100% private property, which is what Ayn Rand advocated, dress codes would be entirely at the discretion of individual property owners, as is the case now in private homes. A great many free speech issues can be put into proper perspective by asking what would be the case if sidewalks, roads, parks etc. were in private hands. Do I have the right to burn an American flag in this plaza? Ask the owner first.

[dondigitalia]

I agree that this is a consequence of "public property," and agree with Rand's ideas about "public property." The fact is, though, that "public property" does exist in our society; whether it should exist is a separate issue from this.

Is the institution of a dress code while in public a proper consequence of public property? Can this question even be answered?

Of course, because the property is said to belong to the taxpayers, there must be elected delegates to determine the rules governing such property. The law was instuted because the sight of underwear was said to be offensive. As Ayn Rand has said many times in regard to other issues: Offensive to whom? Certainly not to those taxpayers who choose to dress this way.

Edited to add: I find this to be an excellent demonstration of why it is impossible to consistently uphold the concept of "public property." Any ruling which favors one group of taxpayers' use of the property over another's is necessarily a violation of someone's property rights. Ayn Rand demonstrated this same principle brilliantly in, if I remember correctly, "The Cashing-In: The Student 'Rebellion'"

[Dominique]

I agree that this is a consequence of "public property," and agree with Rand's ideas about "public property." The fact is, though, that "public property" does exist in our society; whether it should exist is a separate issue from this.

Is the institution of a dress code while in public a proper consequence of public property? Can this question even be answered?

Of course, because the property is said to belong to the taxpayers, there must be elected delegates to determine the rules governing such property. The law was instuted because the sight of underwear was said to be offensive. As Ayn Rand has said many times in regard to other issues: Offensive to whom? Certainly not to those taxpayers who choose to dress this way.

Edited to add: I find this to be an excellent demonstration of why it is impossible to consistently uphold the concept of "public property." Any ruling which favors one group of taxpayers' use of the property over another's is necessarily a violation of someone's property rights. Ayn Rand demonstrated this same principle brilliantly in, if I remember correctly, "The Cashing-In: The Student 'Rebellion'"

Coincidentally I just moved here from VA, all my friends are still up there, I wonder if they know about this. What an utter outrage. But you see, they don't even know how to argue against it.

Does this apply anywhere outside of your home? What if your pants slide down accidentally. What sort of nonsense is this, not only that they are going to fine taxpayers who violate a rule they don't agree with but paid for already, they are also wasting the police forces time, funds, etc. by having them actually follow up on this BS.

[meganfiala]

Not only is this a ridiculous law, but how does one enforce it?

Does it specify how much underwear can be shown? Like maybe 1 inch of underwear above the waistline? It's pretty much whatever an officer deems offensive. To whom?

[dondigitalia]

I don't know if any objective standards have been defined, or if violations are left up to the discretion of individual officers. I should probably find out. God forbid I get caught with plumber's crack one day.

[Oakes]

It is an absolute waste of time (not to mention a waste of electrons) to express outrage about one of thousands of trivial, dumb laws in this country. I'm with Tom Robinson: Keep a wider perspective. Kill a thousand birds with one stone by focusing your arguments against the root cause of these laws: government ownership of property that should be private.

[MisterSwig]

The state of Virginia has now passed a dress code ...

The article says that only the House passed the bill. It still needs to be passed by the Senate before it becomes law, as I understand it.

That a small group of men and women can regulate the dress code of millions of people is the consequence of widespread "public" property.

I'm not so sure how much this has to do with the idea of "public" property. There could be no "public" property whatsoever, i.e., all land could be claimed by a King, and the King could still enforce a dress code. Also, dress codes were legally enforced in the days of America's Founding, when there was comparably very little "public" property.

I think that laws against dress are motivated by and arise from antagonism toward individualism; pro-collectivist beliefs in general. The idea now is that these youth who show their underwear bring down the overall quality of the collective--and thus degrade society. It is immoral to be a blight on the group. You must conform for the sake of others and the collective health and value of the community.

I wouldn't be surprised if that is, indeed, the motivation behind this specific bill. And I wouldn't be surprised if the motivation is deeply rooted in religious collectivism, as the delegate who introduced this bill, Algie T. Howell, is the former president of the Norfolk Chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

P.S. Actually, I just found an article that practically proves my basic point that this bill is motivated by collectivism: http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20050...05116-2078r.htm

"It's not an attack on baggy pants," said Mr. Howell, Norfolk Democrat. "To vote for this bill would be a vote for character, to uplift your community and to do something good not only for the state of Virginia, but for this entire country."

Edited February 10, 2005 by MisterSwig

[EC]

Growing up in the hip-hop culture I've let my pants sag a little since the age of 12 or 13. I'm now 27. I will admit as I've gotten older my pants are staying higher on my hips though. But this law is absolutely crazy. If I'm ever in Virginia I will make it a decision to let my pants sag a little lower just to spite this nonsense. If ticketed I will immediatly sock the cop in his jaw so that I'm properly charged with an objective crime instead of this arbitrary nonsense. This is obviously not your standard Objectivist answer. But this kind of stuff really p*sses me off.

[DavidV]

I doubt that anyone here thinks that it should be legal to go nude on public property, or that one should be able to able to go into a court house shirtless or shoeless. So aside from the issue of the validity of public property as such, once you accept the validity of dress codes at all, the question is a matter of one non-objective fashion standard versus another. (Non-objective, because there are few objective standards for fashion tastes.)

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”?

[redfarmer]

If I'm ever in Virginia I will make it a decision to let my pants sag a little lower just to spite this nonsense. If ticketed I will immediatly sock the cop in his jaw so that I'm properly charged with an objective crime instead of this arbitrary nonsense.

How can you possibly justify initiating force against a police officer for this matter? How can you possibly believe that any justice can be done in this way or that this can be considered a rational act in any way? What constructive purpose could this act possibly achieve? How can you possibly have written this entry and have a signature which says you're a "Rational Thinker?"

Your post is completely irrational and is highly offensive to me. I have a high degree of respect for police officers. Their job is to ensure that order is kept in their jurisdiction. You have no more right to initiate force against a police officer than you have to steal $1 million from Bill Gates.

[EC]

I have absolutely no respect for a police officer that enforces laws based on non-sense. That said redfarmer you need to lighten up. I was half-joking when I said that. But isn't it rational that if you are going to be charged with a crime at least it should really be a *crime*. And I didn't say that if I was to initiate that force that I shouldn't be liable for a crime. I should. If a cop is going to go around wasting his time giving me tickets based on the whims of some lawmaker I'm probally not going to stand there and take it or respect him.

[redfarmer]

I have absolutely no respect for a police officer that enforces laws based on non-sense.

So you would advocate initiating force against them because they enforce non-objective laws? That's the equivalent to saying it's moral to kill a man because he is dishonest!

That said redfarmer you need to lighten up. I was half-joking when I said that.

I don't find the prospect of initiation of force amusing.

But isn't it rational that if you are going to be charged with a crime at least it should really be a *crime*. 

No, it's not rational at all! Are you saying that, since Microsoft is unfairly being accused of being a monopoly, Bill Gates has the right to go out and rob a bank? By what you are advocating, he does. Then at least he would be guilty of an objective crime.

And I didn't say that if I was to initiate that force that I shouldn't be liable for a crime. I should.

You certainly should and, frankly, I would throw the book at you if I were a judge! That's behavior for the Jerry Springer Show, not for a man who claims to be rational in his dealings with human beings! If you were rational, you would write a letter to your congressman protesting the law and do everything else within your talents and abilities to protest it short of VIOLATING SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS!

If a cop is going to go around wasting his time giving me tickets based on the whims of some lawmaker I'm probally not going to stand there and take it or respect him.

If your intention was at humor, you certainly failed miserably. A rational man knows that initiation of force is evil. You have absolutely no right to do anything or advocate anything which would violate the rights of another human being! If people were to accept your logic, complete chaos would ensue because of vigilanti justice.

I seriously suggest you completely rethink your statement.

(edited for clarity)

Edited February 10, 2005 by redfarmer

[EC]

One question: didn't this police officer initiate force against me when he ticketed me for a non-objective law?

I was joking when I said I would hit him and if you were offended sorry but I don't spend my life trying not to offend people.

I would get into an argument with the guy though when he gave me the ticket, and tell him his job is to catch *real* criminals and not try and act as the morality police (and a false morality at that).

[redfarmer]

One question: didn't this police officer initiate force against me when he ticketed me for a non-objective law?

What you actually said was:

That said redfarmer you need to lighten up. I was half-joking when I said that.

That said, the only action you would possibly be justified in taking would be action proportional to the initiation of force. For example, in the instance of being issued a ticket unjustly, you could refuse to pay the ticket and you could be justified in that. However, you would have to weigh the consequenses of your actions against the degree of the injustice being perpetuated against you.

I was joking when I said I would hit him and if you were offended sorry but I don't spend my life trying not to offend people.

Do you understand that the meaning of humor is negation. Humor "denies metaphysic importance to that which you laugh at." (Ayn Rand) By laughing at the prospect of assaulting a police officer, you are essentially saying that police officers aren't metaphysically important, therefore it is perfectly acceptable to laugh at them being assaulted. I don't find this one bit humorous.

You don't seem to understand. It's not about offending me. It's about the fact that you're laughing about initiation of force.

I would get into an argument with the guy though when he gave me the ticket, and tell him his job is to catch *real* criminals and not try and act as the morality police (and a false morality at that).

What of the police officer? Is he just a walking automoton who can't think on his own and is just enforcing laws because someone tells him to? I have a job and I certainly have to follow policies at times that are irrational. If a customer were to berate me for one of those policies it would do absolutely no good whatsoever. The CEO of my company doesn't come to confirm with me everytime he implements a company policy. Just so, I'm sure the police officer issuing you a ticket wasn't consulted by the congressmen before the law was passed.

[RationalBiker]

If I'm ever in Virginia I will make it a decision to let my pants sag a little lower just to spite this nonsense. If ticketed I will immediatly sock the cop in his jaw so that I'm properly charged with an objective crime instead of this arbitrary nonsense. This is obviously not your standard Objectivist answer. But this kind of stuff really p*sses me off.

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 hope your fashion violation gets dismissed, but I also hope you get a couple years in the penitentiary time for the assault. You will really have made your point then. Yea, I'm sure that's in your best interest.

[RationalBiker]

Here is the actual bill:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?051+ful+HB1981H1

I am sending emails to some delegates and senators condemning this bill and those who thought it was necessary to even bring up for consideration.

[BurgessLau]

That said redfarmer you need to lighten up.

Telling someone to "lighten up" is insulting. To be serious means to be focused on basic values, which is good. To "lighten up" means to drop one's basic values from a context, and to act only on the alleged amusement of the range of the moment.

[Dominique]

I doubt that anyone here thinks that it should be legal to go nude on public property, or that one should be able to able to go into a court house shirtless or shoeless.  So aside from the issue of the validity of public property as such, once you accept the validity of dress codes at all, the question is a matter of one non-objective fashion standard versus another.  (Non-objective, because there are few objective standards for fashion tastes.) 

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”?

I'm curious about this as well. Who determines what is appropriate street attire? Objectively speaking, *should* there be any laws against, and fines for public indecency? What constitutes public decency? Is public nudity an initiation of force?

[Capitalism Forever]

So aside from the issue of the validity of public property as such, once you accept the validity of dress codes at all, the question is a matter of one non-objective fashion standard versus another.

Are you talking in legal or moral terms here?

For legal purposes, the public property issue simply cannot be set aside, because it is the very root of the problem. By granting that "the public" owns a street or a courthouse, you also grant that "they" have a right to tell you what to wear while you're there, and to fine you if you don't follow their dress code. The only possible resolution of this legal problem is to eliminate "public" property.

As for moral purposes--that is, for determining what clothes are best for yourself, or how to expect your employees etc. to dress--I think there ARE objective standards. Purposefully sloppy or ragged clothing, for example, is the equivalent of a purposefully careless work of art; it is a willful negation of values. If you evaluate such clothes objectively, you will necessarily come to the conclusion that they're not the best for you; if you see a prospective employee wearing them, you can objectively tell that it is not a good sign about his personality. Sexually inviting clothes are objectively a proper thing for a woman to wear on a date with a man he admires, but they are objectively not the right attire for a business meeting, where they would only distract.

[DavidOdden]

I'm curious about this as well. Who determines what is appropriate street attire?

The proposed law says "Any person who, while in a public place, intentionally wears and displays his below-waist undergarments, intended to cover a person's intimate parts, in a lewd or indecent manner, shall be subject to a civil penalty of no more than $50. " Elseway, the code says "'Intimate parts' means the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, or buttocks of any person".The issue them comes down to what is "lewd or indecent". There are a number of references to the concepts "lewd" and "indecent" in Virginia law, but I could not find a definition of either word. So under the proposed law, the arresting officer would use his judgment based on what he understood about the concept. I would suppose that there must be some kind of general understanding of the term "lewd", since it's prohibited, and police need to know whether they are supposed to bust someone or not. Vern, what's the deal? It looks like the ultimate determination is made by the Commissioner (or a Commissioner -- that's more than I care to know).

Objectively speaking, *should* there be any laws against, and fines for public indecency? What constitutes public decency? Is public nudity an initiation of force?

This is very complex. Virgina law (§4.1-325.11) prohibits a bar owner from allowing lewd conduct in his establishment, and he can be prosecuted if he allows any lewd acts. This proposed law may then protect bar owners. On the other hand, the entirety of §4.1-325, not to mention a lot of other laws, should be stricken. Public nudity is an initiation of force to exactly the same extent as the public wearing of polyester pants suits (read: "NOT!"). I am personally offended by polyester pants suits, and do not wish to have such monstrous miscreations imposed on me. My avowed policy is to avert my eyes. The root of the problem is the concept "public property".

(Oh... as CF just noted).

[Tom Robinson]

MisterSwig wrote:

I'm not so sure how much this has to do with the idea of "public" property. There could be no "public" property whatsoever, i.e., all land could be claimed by a King, and the King could still enforce a dress code.

For this reason I put "public" in quotation marks in my post. In fact, there is no such thing as "public" property. Any lands or buildings called "public" are actually owned by the government, an entity entirely separate from the people living in a country. If any citizen thinks he has ownership in some "public" building, let him try to sell his share of it.

Also, dress codes were legally enforced in the days of America's Founding, when there was comparably very little "public" property.

True enough. In this connection we could also observe that nude dancing is prohibited on private property in certain localities. However, regarding the Virginia statute, it appears that no attempt at sending dress police into private homes and backyards is being proposed. The bill is clearly aimed at improperly attired individuals on public property.

[dondigitalia]

Here is the actual bill:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?051+ful+HB1981H1

I am sending emails to some delegates and senators condemning this bill and those who thought it was necessary to even bring up for consideration.

Thank you for the link to the actual bill, Vern. I am working up some e-mails to send also.

In regard to initiating force against a police officer who enforces this law - that's even more ludicrous than the law itself. Police officers are payed to enforce the laws issued by legislature. That police officer may not agree with the laws that exist, but it is still his job to enforce them. Force is not a proper method of combatting an unjust law. The proper method is to send letters to your elected representatives stating your view, spreading awareness of your opinion in the hopes that others will agree, leading to the election of officials who will create just laws. Two wrongs do not make a right.