[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Case]
It is social standards the restrict nudity not law. We are much less enlightened
in the States where we seem to think that because something is legal it is
"right". As a result we have to run around figuring out what is not right or
what is threatening so we can make it illegal. We feel more and more threatened
by trivialities that if we ignored would just go away, like Mohawks and nipple
piercing.

[Arlo]
I reposted your conclusion, first, because I agree with it. Although, I'm not
sure why we'd want mohawks and nipple piercing to go away? If everyone looked
the same, life would be quite boring. Indeed, I think what we need is MORE
flair, challenge and flaunting of the prudish and retrogressive mores of our
conservative leaning society. Maybe the influx of Latino blood will add some
spice to an otherwise dull potato soup.

[Case]
Any society is a law unto itself. The only measure of moral rightness is the
continuation of the society. Aztec society had the right to build giant
pyramids, march 20,000 people up to the top and rips their hearts out by hand.
Various societies across the global have, at one time or another, seen it as
morally right to feast on their neighbors.

[Arlo]
I think we have a foundational disagreement here. Anything a society does to
perpetuate itself is moral? Certainly that can't be what you are suggesting? I
though the whole elevation of "Intellect" over society was to counter such a
notion?

[Case]
It is not obvious that all men are endowed by their creator with certain
inalienable right. These rights obviously are alienable. They had been
alienated for all recorded time and they continue to be alienated to this day
in many places.

[Arlo]
The modern interpretation obviously only refers to "economic rights" that are
"inalienable". Obviously non-economic ones are alienable, as we continue to see
demonstrated by the Heralds of Individualism.

[Arlo previously]
I've argued that while society does indeed have a right, a moral right, to
constrain behavior, it does not have "carte blanche" right to impose any
restriction a majority may see fit (or a minority, as the case may be).That is,
just because its law doesn't make it moral law. And just becaues a majority act
a certain way, that is no moral justification for passing a law to demand
others act that way too.

[Case]
Society, whatever that may be, is able to continue to the extent that its
members comply with its standards. I believe that when the members accept
social standards willfully and joyfully the society is better able to send its
seeds into the future.

[Arlo]
The question is not whether or not a majority will impose social pressue on a
minority to behave a certain way (I'm not sure if its possible NOT to have this
happen), but whether or not that majority has the right to use force to prevent
non-violent behavior that does not conform. Remember that the "veil" issue
orginated when Platt remarked it was a victory for Intellect to use FORBID BY
LAW people from wearing veils. We've drifted from this somewhat, but that's
also the key to Rebecca's and Gav's comments, and also what Horse suggests.
Namely, that people while social pressure will always be a part of group
behavior, we should not use "the law" to forbid behavior on the basis that it
"offends", or is "aesthetically unappealing" or whatever slippery-slope du jour
Platt offers ("Rape", by the way, is the latest. I guess he felt "public
fornication" was not ridiculous enough).

[Case]
To the degree that force is required to compel conformity, energy is wasted and
I suspect the society is on borrowed time. Or as Lao Tzu says:

[Arlo]
Good quote, I agree with its sentiment. But we should be careful when we think
about "conformity". Sometimes its good, I want to people to "conform" to
societal norms of "no murdering", but othertimes, indeed MOST times it comes up
this way, it is over a need to force everyone to behave EXACTLY as I do. 
Diversity is a good thing, despite what the uniculturalists and monolithic Borg
would have us believe.

Anyways, Case, its always good to talk to you.