As if we needed for more fodder for the debate about the Seattle area's pathetic inability to deal with the topic of strip clubs: a new venue may be coming to downtown Seattle as law enforcement continues its very important crackdowns on 4-foot rules and the like.
Sigh.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 26, 2008 11:30 AM | Email ThisLook, strip clubs are peaceful businesses. Republicans should support that! This is a free market issue.
I've honestly never been in a strip club in my life. (The cover is too expensive and I am a cheapskate!) I feel the same way about strip clubs as I feel about gambling. Neither are things I advocate, but it is not my right to prohibit such peaceful activity.
If you don't like it in your neighborhood then picket and boycott, but there should be no laws against such peaceful businesses as long as there is no significant nuisance, and I doubt there is any more incidence of nuisance with a strip club than with any other kind of bar or restaurant or night club.
Get the government out. All they want to do is shake down peaceful businesses. All the politicians want to do is violate the rights of the minority in exchange for political contributions from powerful interest groups like social conservatives. This is about liberty and property. It is about out rights. If we don't defend them for others, then when they violate our rights who will defend us?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 26, 2008 03:01 PMDo you accept any distinction for the size of the jurisdiction? (And I'm curious not just with respect to strip clubs, but in general.)
Like you, I've never been into one of those places. And I certainly don't think it could in any way be considered a federal matter, as it would require a remarkable stretch of logic to find the "interstate" nature of a jiggling pair of boobs. Likewise, the state is still a pretty big place.
But if memory serves, there was a ruckus about this in Kenmore. Now, Kenmore is basically one little stretch of Bothell Way, and little else. To put a giant sign up that says, "Girls! Girls! Girls! 50 Pretty Girls and 3 Ugly Ones!" would change the character of the downtown area. Should the people of Kenmore have no say in this?
Yes, it is potentially a slippery slope. Yes, I'm not entirely comfortable with letting municipalities regulate or prohibit certain types of businesses just on the grounds of general objectionability. But it's also a slippery slope in the other direction as well: If the 7-11 next to the junior high wants to drum up business by hiring people to have sex in the front window, where did we actually cross a line and create "victims"? Arguments of victimization can be made, but really what we have are not so much victims as a morally offended citizenry who overwhelmingly would prefer not to have to put up with that sort of thing in their neighborhood.
Although it gives me pause to hear myself saying this, I do think there is sometimes a case to be made for allowing smaller jurisdictions to pass laws for the common good "just because." Yes, I'm uncomfortable that I can't come up with a nice, neat little litmus test for when that should apply -- a supermajority requirement might be a way to curb abuses -- but I don't think that collective rights are completely nonexistent.
Posted by: TB on January 26, 2008 04:09 PMI guess my position is that it is dangerous to resort to government laws to solve these kinds of problems because it tends to set a bad precedent.
Instead, I would prefer that local citizens boycott, write letters to the editor, and apply non-governmental pressure on organizations that do objectionable things.
For instance, the objectionable billboard advertiser should get a lot of nasty phone calls. Other companies who advertise with the outdoor agency should be threatened with boycotts. People should stand below the billboard with signs, etc. The right thing to do is to "shun" people who do anti-social things like this. If they are in the Lions Club, or some similar organization, they might hear about it there as well.
This means taking more responsibility and getting involved in your community. People who hope the government will do this for them are lazy, and deprive themselves of community involvement and social interaction. Relying on the government is one reason we no longer know our neighbors. The government has built walls between us in this way.
When we ask the government to step in in these cases, we give up some of our rights. With rights come responsibility.
We need to solve our problems for ourselves: self-reliance and voluntary community, not government.
Society is so much more than just government.
Government is a blunt instrument. Solving social problems via the government is like hunting mosquitos with an elephant gun.
And all laws are based on the use of force. If you disobey a law, ultimately, men come with guns and take you away. Force should only be used against people who have already used, or threatened to use force, not against peaceful, if tasteless people.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on January 26, 2008 04:36 PMI worry about the scenario where the offending party is indifferent to public pressure -- his profits don't depend on his local popularity, in the case of bad business behavior, or he's just a little psycho and doesn't care, in the case of bad personal behavior. But you make a good case for setting the system up in such a way as to encourage citizen involvement.
Posted by: TB on January 26, 2008 07:54 PMI remember a story about car thief Neal Kelley who crashed into and killed an SPD officer. Shortly prior to the crash, a woman had found Kelley's ID in her stolen van, which had been recovered. She went to police, figuring they would track down and arrest him, but they completely blew her off--no time for an auto-theft case, beyond the usual paperwork required by insurance.
Yet, they have time for virtually continuous sex-stings? How even the cops can tolerate this waste of resources, especially when their own are being killed, is beyond me.
Posted by: russell garrard on January 26, 2008 09:00 PMAnyway, it's ironic that even post-Khomeni Iran is more liberal on this point than Seattle under Nickels/Carr/Kerlikowske.
Posted by: russell garrard on January 26, 2008 09:44 PM