749 replies to this topic

[bishmasterb]

border,

So when it comes to the ability to conduct business, you believe that the majority has absolute power to grant or deny that ability? Is that correct?

[bordercolliefan]

By the way, Bish, I found your comment that Forumreader might be "The most sheltered person on the face of the earth" ridiculous.

It may be that Forumreader is not so much sheltered... but that she seeks out things in keeping with her values and the values she wishes to impart to her children, rather than assuming she needs to be aware of everything, and partake of everything, that the market tries to tell us we should need or want.

I say "Bravo!" for people who stick to their values and don't feel the need to know everything about the latest R-rated movies, where to buy porn, etc.

[Cloud9]

I have to agree with Bish... Forumreader's comments are those of one who is very sheltered.

As it pertains to porn in America, 56% of Americans view porn. Whether right or wrong (according to your values), any non-viewer of porn is in the minority.

The average age... mind you 'average' age of first sex in America is 16.9. Do you really think that's their first exposure to sexual content? Doubtful.

I'm not saying that you have to do what the majority does.... we all live by our own values, whatever those may be. I'm sure each of us does things in our own lives that wouldn't agree with the values of others.

For me, this is no big deal. For my wife, this is no big deal.

Property values? Do you honestly think that property values in Folsom will drop when the shop opens?

[bishmasterb]

By the way, Bish, I found your comment that Forumreader might be "The most sheltered person on the face of the earth" ridiculous. 

It was meant to be ridiculous, probably fairly accurate, but still ridiculous; and by no means an insult.

[bishmasterb]

border,

So when it comes to the ability to conduct business, you believe that the majority has absolute power to grant or deny that ability? Is that correct?

Because the majority has given us great businesses and laws like slavery, Jim Crow laws, lack of a woman's right to vote, etc.

The majority can not be trusted.

[forumreader]

Thank you Art4Sale for answering some of my questions without judgement.

Bish and Cloud9: I don't think you gentlemen know enough about me to speculate on whether or not I am sheltered......I also know nothing about scuba diving, motorcycles, or Indian food to name a few areas of ignorance. Does that also qualify me as "sheltered?".....By golly, I spent four years at Berkeley. I've seen a fair sampling of what's out there, including the off-beat and bizarre. I've just chosen not to participate.

Thank you, bordercollie! You couldn't have stated my case any better. (You must be one sharp attorney. ) It's nice to know I have company on this Sutter St. shop discussion. I also have no problem with an upscale and tasteful shop.

[Cloud9]

Thank you Art4Sale for answering some of my questions without judgement. 

Bish and Cloud9:  I don't think you gentlemen know enough about me to speculate on whether or not I am sheltered......I also know nothing about scuba diving, motorcycles, or Indian food to name a few areas of ignorance.  Does that also qualify me as "sheltered

Yes, that would make you sheltered in my book....

The questions that you asked, if serious about them, indicate a certain level of 'shelteredness' that Berkely apparently had no effect on....

[bishmasterb]

I'm sorry if I've insulted anyone, that wasn't my intention.

Please, if there is a better word for someone who "shelters" themselves from anything pornographic or sexually graphic, please let me know what it is and I will attempt to use that term in the future.

[dave]

I don't care whether or not this store opens. It doesn't bother me at all.

But I have a question for Cloudbishamal and others. Let's slide down the slope a little more. What if the the store has a how-to book on rape, or child pornography (ignore that it's already illegal), or toys that were clearly designed only to hurt others.

Also, let's say that the owner is a multi-millionaire and doesn't care if he loses money as long as he provides these items for the few that want them.

What then? Do even Libertarians draw a line eventually?

[bordercolliefan]

Bish,

I don't know if the power should be absolute. There may be certain products that are so fundamental to a person's right to self-determination or privacy that the majority should not be able to decree that they cannot be sold in a certain community. For example, imagine a town where the majority of residents are Catholic. The majority tries to prevent a drugstore from selling any birth control products. --This strikes me as problemmatic. Similarly, imagine a town that is primarily Christian and tries to stop a store from opening that will sell Jewish religious items.

Quite honestly, I'm not sure how one draws the line between the types of examples I suggested and our present dilemma -- i.e., the opening of the "sex shop" (assuming that is what it will be). However, I do feel there are certain types of businesses that are widely regarded as tawdry, that serve no compelling interest (i.e., people do have a constitutional right to practice their religion, but not to use sex toys), and that can tend to depress property values. Surely, a community has the right to prevent itself from being invaded by these undesirable businesses. At the very least, the town can regulate such businesses to the degree that the climate is very unfavorable for them.

It is wrong to say the the market will determine if such businesses are desired in a given community. The problem is that the primary customers for the business may be out-of-towners -- not members of the community. This sex shop could profit quite handsomely from tourists and residents of surrounding communities -- but still not be something we want to have in Folsom.

[Adamal]

I don't care whether or not this store opens.  It doesn't bother me at all.

But I have a question for Cloudbishamal and others.  Let's slide down the slope a little more.  What if the the store has a how-to book on rape, or child pornography (ignore that it's already illegal), or toys that were clearly designed only to hurt others.

Also, let's say that the owner is a multi-millionaire and doesn't care if he loses money as long as he provides these items for the few that want them.

What then?  Do even Libertarians draw a line eventually?

Books on rape or child pornography more than draw the line, anything that is designed for the sole purpose to hurt others should never be allowed in our society.

The comment about the multi-millionaire is a little wacky. Most millionaires are smart with their money and won't start a business to loose money.

[Adamal]

...There is?!.....Do you mean that the run-of-the-mill liquor store in Folsom sells pornography?

If that is the case, I have a few questions:

Are there age restrictions on the sale of pornography and these other "adult" items that we've been discussing?  You need to be 18 and 21 to buy tobacco and alcohol, correct?  How old do you need to be to purchase these other items?  Is the law, if it exists, enforced?

Does a business owner need a license to sell smut , like he needs a license to sell alcohol?  Is he faced with license revocation or fines for selling these items to under-age kids?

What about age restrictions on selling videos?  A 16-year-old is supposedly not permitted to view an R-rated movie at the theatre without a parent.  Could that same 16-year-old rent an R-rated movie at Blockbuster?  Could he buy it at a retail store, let's say Target?.......Would about about these X-rated videos?...How strictly are these laws enforced?

Now referring specifically to this lingerie shop on Sutter, I wonder how they plan on enforcing age-restriction laws (if they apply).  It was mentioned that the smut would be kept in the back of the store in a section separated by a gate.  Would the gate have a lock?  Would a customer have to show ID to enter the back section of the store, or could an older-looking 16-year-old easily slip in?

Since we are not consumers of these items, I realize I haven't given much thought to age restriction issues.  For example, we have our rules at home about movie viewing for our older son --  PG or an occasional PG-13 movie approved by us. 

If anyone has the answers, I'd appreciate their post.  (I'm a little leery to do a web search on "pornography laws" for fear of what unwanted material might pop-up on the screen.)

I can understand how forumreader may not know about porn in liquor stores. The only reason I found this out is as a kid I noticed porn magazines in an airport magazine shop. You do have to be over 18 to purchase it and they are not allowed to display nudity on the cover. If there is then it needs to be censored. As far as a lock on the Lingerie shop. Why? First if a child is in their alone that should raise some bells. Otherwise the parent should be responsible for there child. The fact that it is behind a gate in the very back of the store with a sign (Adults only) should be sufficient. The only thing I ask is that parents be aware of your children in the store and for the store keeper make sure you card anyone that even remotly looks like they don't belong there.

[Cloud9]

Aren't all these issues irrelevant? Isn't the store open already?

Dave, why go the rape and child porn route? Would you sanction a store that teaches people to kill others? - no sex involved there. It's a preposterous analogy.

Border, I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing that the fact that porn is widely sold throughout America, tells me that no self-righteous lawyer has figured out a way to stop it legally.

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with your premise, the constitutional right to practice their religion - Would you choose a satanic church in that location over the lingerie shop? Not saying that these are the only two choices, but you seem to defend the satanic church over the lingerie shop based on your statements.

[bishmasterb]

I don't care whether or not this store opens.  It doesn't bother me at all.

But I have a question for Cloudbishamal and others.  Let's slide down the slope a little more.  What if the the store has a how-to book on rape, or child pornography (ignore that it's already illegal), or toys that were clearly designed only to hurt others.

Also, let's say that the owner is a multi-millionaire and doesn't care if he loses money as long as he provides these items for the few that want them.

What then?  Do even Libertarians draw a line eventually?

Dave,

Thanks for the excellent questions.

First off, you are unlikely to see a store open that caters to the activities you mentioned because they are abhored by the overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans, and even those very few who are interested in them probably have a huge stake in protecting their identities as such.

NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) exists (legally as far as I know) yet they could never open a retail store anywhere because they would be picketed endlessly until they left. Not to mention, they would never find a landlord that would rent them space. Essentially, it is not in there best interest to do so, so they don't. Instead they exist on the fringe of society, because they cater to a crowd that is universally hated.

In response to the latter part of your post regarding the millionaire. Adamal responded appropriately, that millionaires usually don't get that way by engaging in unprofitable activities. But I'll humor you and go further with it.

Let's say we have a foolish millionaire, or better yet, a millionaire out to prove a point, and he doesn't care about losing money. Odds are he is going to go after individuals or a community that has persecuted him. The best example I can think of is Larry Flynt's attack on Jerry Falwell, where Flynt published in Hustler magazine very offensive remarks about Falwell and his mother. He did this of course because he had an axe to grind against the religious establishment.

Let me change your topic from rape to a legal, yet widely abhored, subject: bomb making. Why haven't we seen any wealthy, foolish millionaires open bomb making book stores? The answer is of course, because there aren't any foolish, wealthy millionaires who wish to open bomb making book stores. And if they don't exist, should we bother making laws to prohibit them?

-----------------------

Most Libertarians would draw the line at the initiation of force. A book on rape, as abhorant as all of us find that to be, doesn't initiate force. Rape is force, and therefore is wrong. A book is an inanimate object, not capable of hurting anyone.

[dave]

Cloud, I'm just trying to see where you would draw the line, preposterous analogy or not.

Adamal, there are lots of wacky rich folk who run money losing businesses on the side that they like. It doesn't matter. The point is to weed out the obstructions and get down to the basic question. Where do you draw the line?

Try this: The wacky rich guy puts the offending material in the front window where kids can easily see it.

Since some of you find others prudish and this whole topic an easy one, I'm just trying to push the line your way. Frankly I'm with y'all on this one. Just trying to make it interesting.