what's the libertarian view on bathrooms?

[WestEndHokie39]

In world's outside of libertarian utopia, security guards in the bathroom don't exist. Also she can call the police to report the perv. So just admit it, you're making a proposal that can't be enforced. That's why BG is for it.

Twice in my life I have accidentally walked into a woman's bathroom. Fortunately, both times they were empty and I realized my mistake quickly and left. If I had encountered a woman as I was leaving, should I have been arrested?

Pervs are going to commit other crimes besides just being physically in a rest room, so the cops will be able to make an arrest. What's ridiculous about your scenario is that security or management is not available, but the police will be at the bathroom door in a second once they are called. You are also assuming that in a place as big as the Empire State Building, there would be no men who would go into the bathroom and drag a dude out who wouldn't leave.

Another stupid assumption in your example is that large numbers of private property owners would allow customers to use whatever bathrooms they wanted. The SJWs must use the power of government to enforce their extremist views because almost 100% of private property owners would not allow it. Then the owners would ensure adequate security and management to make sure the policy was enforced.

Your point is so ridiculous you have to use extreme examples of the ESB with NO SECURITY!!! Not going to happen in real life.

[WestEndHokie39]

There have already been cases of pervs undressing in women's bathrooms in front of young girls and hetero men filming women showering on their cell phones.

Filming women showering would be illegal even in "libertarian utopia". It would violate her rights. No business owner in his/her right mind would allow men to undress in front of young girls- again, that is government force violating the rights of the private property owner to run the business as he/she wishes.

Just as it should be illegal for men to expose themselves to young girls on the street, I think it should be illegal in a bathroom or a shower, too.

[awesome guy]

There have already been cases of pervs undressing in women's bathrooms in front of young girls and hetero men filming women showering on their cell phones.

Filming women showering would be illegal even in "libertarian utopia". It would violate her rights. No business owner in his/her right mind would allow men to undress in front of young girls- again, that is government force violating the rights of the private property owner to run the business as he/she wishes.

Just as it should be illegal for men to expose themselves to young girls on the street, I think it should be illegal in a bathroom or a shower, too.

Why can't libertarians use reply with quotes properly? I don't get it, you guys want to do everything differently.

[cwtcr hokie]

except you saw what happened, Charlotte forces thru a very flawed ordinance, so the state had no choice but to step in. The hilarity of the situation is all the folks that have no idea what either the ordinance was or what the state law is..... but facts don't matter

The city law were unnecessary but that doesn't mean the state should have stepped in. Both sets of laws seem like a bad idea to me. It's really not an issue that needs legislation in my opinion. Governments trying to fix stuff that's not broken. By and large, transgenders have been successfully using the bathroom for the sex in which they identify with people rarely being the wiser.

You guys can't understand that these laws keep perverts and sickos out of the ladies room. Understandably, you seem to think the gender confused person is the sicko. While there's a lot of overlap in populations, the sickos in question are the ones looking to sexually assault women, video their privates, etc. When you change the law so that anyone can go in, anyone does. Gender specific laws give women the ability to remove such people at site.

Yes, the North Carolina law will keep perverts and sickos out of the ladies room just like gun laws prevent criminals from having guns. Thank god criminals follow the law.

They actually do. Them being there is the crime, giving cause for instant removal. It's also an instant clue for the woman to leave, grab her mace, grab her firearm, etc

Right, this is the law that criminals obey, unlike gun laws. Partisans, using opposite sides of logic because it backs up when they think the government needs to be involved. Classic stuff, from the big government SoCons.

the point being with the morons that wrote the charlotte ordinance a guy would have carte blanche to walk into wherever he wanted to. While if it is law to use the bathroom you are equipped to use then a guy walking into a ladies locker room or bathroom gets noticed and dealt with accordingly

[BG Hokie]

I disagree with the original Charlotte law (from what little I know about it). Bad legislation be got more bad legislation at the state level. Government getting involved mucked this up. The government isn't needed to solve a problem that is rarely, ever a problem. In this case, government has made the problem IMO.

[cwtcr hokie]

I disagree with the original Charlotte law (from what little I know about it). Bad legislation be got more bad legislation at the state level. Government getting involved mucked this up. The government isn't needed to solve a problem that is rarely, ever a problem. In this case, government has made the problem IMO.

I agree with you, the morons in Charlotte started this crap, but since the city has been run by tax loving liberal folks for decades it is to be expected. Now they probably wish they had just stuck to wasting money daily and raising taxes.