Women think they are entitled to more restrooms than men!

[Imran Siddiqui]

When you emerge from fantasy land,

This assumes that someday he will .

[Dr Strangelove]

It should be possible to design a more or less stand-up unrinal for women. OK, maybe it would be more like a high squat, but I think it's do - able.

[David Floyd]

The only point, BG, worth responding to is as follows:

(which a potty-starved public could care less about when they gotta go).

You're absolutely right. Most people don't care about individual rights, and are quite willing to trample over those rights for the sake of convenience.

I don't quite see, though, why you think this means we should LET them trample over individual rights.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't quite see, though, why you think this means we should LET them trample over individual rights.

Cause in this case 100% individual property rights is a bunch of total BS .

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
First of all, I've stated repeatedly that I WOULD let employees use my restroom.

I apologize. It was the notion of poop filled streets that attracted my attention.

Secondly, "pissing in the work areas" is NOT the only alternative.

When ya gotta go, ya gotta go.

[David Floyd]

Imran,

Cause in this case 100% individual property rights is a bunch of total BS

Why "in this case"?

DD,

I apologize. It was the notion of poop filled streets that attracted my attention.

Then I suggest you try reading what I write, rather than what other people write and accuse me of believing.

When ya gotta go, ya gotta go.

If you're in the middle of a presentation, you can't just get up and leave - you might have to hold it for an hour. Next time, you'll remember to go before you start, and drink less coffee. There's a moral in there somewhere.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then I suggest you try reading what I write, rather than what other people write and accuse me of believing.

It was too funny not to try and do anything with.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why "in this case"?

Because you gotta pee! It's such a basic human function that public accomadations have to be made for it.

[David Floyd]

Because you gotta pee! It's such a basic human function that public accomadations have to be made for it.

So does this mean that whenever people get hungry, they can come in my place of business and have a picnic? After all, eating is a basic human function, right?

"Basic human function" does not seem a sufficient argument to justify nullifying my property rights. Sorry.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So does this mean that whenever people get hungry, they can come in my place of business and have a picnic? After all, eating is a basic human function, right?

You forgot the 'such a' part, btw.

And btw, when employees work all day you have to offer them a food break, because eating is a 'basic human function'. Like you have to offer a bathroom break and if you have a bathroom allow your employees to use it during that break (cause it don't cost anything for someone to use a bathroom).

"Basic human function" does not seem a sufficient argument to justify nullifying my property rights. Sorry.

Does here bucko. If any state was dumb enough to say it doesn't, then I can see a very successful piss and poop protest.

[Mr. Harley]

DF, as an individual with libetarian leanings, I've heard your arguments, the problem is that there is a certain lack of consistency in the pure libetarian credo (I'll grant you that you have the arguments down pat, I'll respect you if get caught in some of the unpleasant consequences of them and don't whine - not saying you would, but I have found many of the so-called libetarians stop being quite so devoted to it when the get f**** by a libetarian-type occurance, i.e. the uninsured motorist who has no assets you can sue over, while you have over $200,000 in medical expenses, I knew a girl that happened to - she couldn't afford alot of insurance, and ran out of benefits quickly and went bankrupt).

Back again to rights versus entitlements. Have you read "Starship Troopers" and Heinlien's exposition on rights? There is no such thing as a right under your definition. A government, or a criminal, can take away EVERYTHING we talk about as rights. I can torture you to the point you no longer can think cognitively, even removing your ability for "the pursuit of happiness" - Heinlien's one right. We can take away your right to die, at least for several years, though the grim reaper eventually will take his due. Rights versus entitlements, as you define them, is a confuser. At least be honest and state that you believe there are NO rights. Only entitlements. Of course then we'll disagree.

Back to "laissez-faire capitalism". The genie cannot not go back into the bottle. Corporations have stacked the system against the individual. Try to be involved in a lawsuit with one (I was once - they got stupid and I got lucky, came out OK). They are not going to let loose of the trappings of power and control, they have made sure the system is biased in their favor, and the voters of the industrial countries are not going to wake up and realize that the strong central governments we have are generally not in our best interest. Libetarians lost long ago. This is not to say don't keep trying when you vote. I do. But realize the genie was never in the bottle.

There are two other problems with your arguments. First is the public health issue. People crapping in the streets? Back to the middle ages? Can't happen in your libetarian world? Again, who will sue the poor and our homeless, or those who just don't give a damn. Disease organisms do not care about individual rights. I've read O. Neil Smith, "The Probabilty Broach." Nice libetarian fantasy, and he has to stick in certain "deus ex machina" to get his libetarian system past several chokepoints.

Lastly, what about those who CANNOT hold it. My late mother had Crohn's disease. Prior to the point where she finally had an ileostomy (they had to cut out her large intestine, and part of the small), she had minimal capacity to hold it. Diapers don't work, because we aren't talk incontinence. Digestive juices (still functioning due to the speed with which things went through her system) are not good when left in contact with skin. Same thing applies to other real disabilities. Remember why Bush Senior favored the American with Disabilities Act. The largest number of people missing lower limbs is veterans. True libetarian cant is heartless, soulless, and leads to a society most of wouldn't care to live in. A hybrid is both the best we can realistically hope for, and frankly is a much more livable place than the idealistic, unrealistic pure libetarian fantasy.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The only point, BG, worth responding to is as follows:

Because you can't answer the others...

You're absolutely right. Most people don't care about individual rights, and are quite willing to trample over those rights for the sake of convenience.

I don't quite see, though, why you think this means we should LET them trample over individual rights.

It's not about other people not caring about individual rights--it's about there being no other solution to what is an otherwise insurmountable problem.

Where's your solution, David? I'd love to see how you'll ensure a healthy, poo-free environment in a city of 8+ million people (not counting tourists and visitors) when you're morally opposed to taxes and to requiring business owners to let people use their toilets. This requires the government either to constantly clean it up (a large added expense, meaning more taxes), to enforce "No Poo" regulations (again, more expense, and detracting police from more important law enforcement) or to do nothing. If you choose to do nothing, then you're in for the worst headache of all as human waste flows through the streets. This will result in a catastrophe both for public health and the city's prosperity and way of life. Tourism and business dies, epidemics run rampant (causing more expense to the city) and you're looking at the Middle Ages.

So in this instance, Libertarianism is patently ludicrous as a management philosophy. Yes, you're consistent in your arguments, but so what? Besides being the hobgoblin of small minds, consistency is patenly useless in a world of billions of people being ever-more crowded into what is a confined space. And as the future arrives, you'll find NYC's delimma being the norm, not the exception. Sure, now only maybe NY, San Francisco and Chicago have to worry about it, but in 20 years time it will be Dallas, Houston, Seattle, Miami, etc. And yes, libertarianism will be chucked aside in favor of common sense.

[:) Smiley]

Thumbs up for common sense