In addition to the measures against military recruiters described in Eugene's recent posts, Berkeley is also considering enacting a zoning ordinance to restrict their location in much the same way as other cities use zoning to restrict or ban businesses selling pornography:
If passed by a majority of Berkeley voters, a proposed initiative would require military recruiting offices and private military companies in Berkeley to first acquire a special use permit....
If the initiative passes, recruitment offices could not be opened within 600 feet of residential districts, public parks, public health clinics, public libraries, schools or churches...
The author of the initiative, Berkeley-based lawyer Sharon Adams, modeled the initiative after current zoning law that restricts the location of adult-oriented businesses.
"In the same way that many communities limit the location of pornographic stores, that's the same way we feel about the military recruiting stations," said Phoebe Sorgen, an initiative proponent and a member of the city's Peace and Justice Commission. "Teenagers that really want to find them will be able to seek them out and find them, but we don't want them in our face."
Conservatives are justifiably outraged by the proposed Berkeley measure. I share their indignation. However, it is striking that advocates of the Berkeley measure use most of the same arguments for it as many conservatives use to justify zoning out adult businesses and other enterprises they disapprove of.
For example, the Berkeleyites claim that the measure is justified on the basis of community morality in Berkeley, where much of the very left-wing population finds military recruiters offensive. As Berkeley Councilmember Dona Spring puts it, "I do want to do something, whatever we can do, to shut down an agency that offends our public standards." Conservatives similarly argue that local communities that find adult businesses offensive should be able to ban them for that reason. If conservative local majorities should be able to use zoning law to enforce their moral values, why shouldn't the left-wing local majority in Berkeley be able to do the same thing?
Similarly, both groups cite the need to protect the young. As Sharon Adams, author of the proposed Berkeley law explained, "We feel that as a community we need to protect the youth" from military recruiters. Similarly, conservatives seek to use zoning to protect the young from the supposedly corrupting influences of porn. In (very limited) defense of the Berkeley activists, it seems likely that joining the military (at least in a combat role) is a far more dangerous activity for the young than consuming porn.
Finally, both groups justify zoning restrictions on the grounds that the enterprises they oppose cause harmful "secondary effects" on the community. Conservatives claim that adult businesses cause crime and disorder. The Berkeley leftists argue that military recruiting stations promote violence, militarism, and discrimination against gays and lesbians. I think that the Berkeley secondary effects arguments are extremely implausible. But social science research suggests that the conservative ones aren't much better. For a good summary of the data, see Bryant Paul, et al., Government Regulation of “Adult Businesses” Through Zoning and Anti-Nudity Ordinances: Debunking the Legal Myth of Negative Secondary Effects,6 Communication Law & Policy 355 (2001). See also this more recent study.
To be clear, I don't believe that local governments should use zoning restrictions to target either recruiting stations or adult businesses. Those individuals who have a strong desire to isolate themselves from either one have many options for doing so. They can use restrictive covenants, live in a private planned community (as over 50 million Americans do already), or move to a neighborhood where there is little potential market for whatever type of business they disapprove of. However, they should not use the heavy hand of government to force out enterprises merely because they find them offensive. Zoning might be able to play a valuable role in providing certain local public goods and in restricting businesses that cause genuinely severe harm to their neighbors. But mere community disapproval - whether by the right or the left - should not be enough to justify such restrictions.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Community Morality and Zoning Restrictions on Adult Businesses and Military Recruiting Stations:
- Conspiracy Theory -- Pass It On:
- You're Only Supposed to Go to a City with the City Council's Invitation? Who Knew?
Of course, the erogenous zoners have a better rationale for lying about their motivations - federal courts tell them to! The first prong of the Renton/Alameda is basically just "Are you convincingly enough lying about your motivations?"
Ask the bankrupt, former owner of St. Paul Guns. He ran a totally regulated business required to serve only those who can pass a criminal/mental/chemical background check by the FBI. There was never a police call to his business although officers did frequent it for the camaraderie. The best evidence of adverse secondary effects provided by the city staff was a an unsworn statement by an anti-gun crusader that "I puke when I drive by" (is that a "drive-by puking"?).
Yes, 13 year old boys might use porn. But what's the harm of them doing so? And in any event, they could easily find lots of porn online instead. And while military recruiters can't sign 13 year old boys into the military, their presence might influence them to join later. This is part of what the Berkeley people are objecting to.
Clever counterintuitive post. I will add to your limited defense that individuals seeking to avoid porn shops have much better options than those seeking to avoid military recruiters, if only because porn shops do not have the power of the Federal government backing them (except indirectly through the first amendment).
But I think your defense and the Berkeley activists miss the benefit side of the equation. It is hard to even supporters of porn shops to come up with a social benefit of pornography, except the generalized notion that consumers are willing to pay for it so there must be some utility there. On the other hand, even Berkeley activists must concede there are some secondary benefits of military membership (even if overall they think the costs outweigh those benefits): the military has produced some fine leaders that even Berkeley residents must admire (e.g. George Washington); it provides education to those that might not otherwise be able to afford it; it defends the homeland from potential invasion; etc. And I am not including other generally considered benefits that Berkeley residents might deny are benefits (e.g. it protects U.S. interests abroad, it instills discipline in its members, etc.)
No doubt most libertarian fanatics would howl with outrage at being compared with communists or religious zealots. But to us moderate, sensible people, they're really all the same.
I simply say that Berkeley be denied any Federal funds, in the spirit of the Solomon Amendment.
If I were feeling vindictive, I'd propose declaring the City of Berkeley out of the protection of the United States and that foreign powers may do with it what they will.....
Do you really think that Berkeleyites admire the dead white male, slave owning, militarist George Washington?
Considering that I've seen several proposals for Berkeley and/or the SF Bay Area to secede, the morons would probably welcome the declaration. At first anyway...
Well, why should they? It's enough if the customers are happy. It's up to the government to show some social harm if it wants to regulate any activity.
On another matter: under this theory, could a community forbid its schools from allowing UC Berkeley recruiters to approach students?
Seize City Hall and turn it into a military recruitment super station.
Then go to each of the coucil members houses and do the same.
It would only cost a few million and that is less than the cost of a company sized unit.
Is there any constitutional mechanism for expelling territory?
But the constitution has a straightforward approach to these matters -- military installation matters are federal and override state and local law, precisely so that NIMBY considerations don't paralyze national defence.
And the advantage of this is that one can decide questions without having to express views of local mores. Are Berkeley's concerns that the military will introduce "violence and homophobia" any better or worse than more traditional concerns that it will introduce drunkenness, prostitution, and loose living?
What business is it of the Federal governemnt, what business is it of the Federal constitution, to decide which set of local-community values is better? We don't have to decide this, and we shouldn't.
I think the vast majority of Berkeleyites admire George Washington. They may not admire the slave owning aspect of him, but please enlighten me on anyone who does. Even for conservatives who think Berkeley residents are crazy, it does no benefit to argue against a caricature.
Please note I said usual and customary. No gun ranges, no mining, etc.
Really, be my guest. Washington's Birthday is coming up: try to get the Berkeley City Council to pass a resolution honoring him. You will not be able to do that. So let's not accuse others of caricature when they speak simple truth.
How can recruiting people into the military not promote militarism? Is that not its function and effect, by definition? (I suppose you could argue that that is in fact a primary effect of military recruitment, not a secondary one, but that hardly weakens Berkeley's case.) As to promoting violence, again, that would seem to be more or less the whole point in the first place.
One can of course argue that the US military only promotes good forms of militarism and violence - that is, patriotic defense of country and controlled force applied under justified circumstances, as opposed to the bad things normally denominated "militarism" and "violence". Aside from the fact that that seems to be obviously false, and whether or not such a distinction makes sense in the first place, it is not an argument to the claim of secondary effects, it is an argument to the value position rejecting such effects. Even if you concede that the US military only promotes militarism and violence in the good way, the claim of fact that it does so promote them remains untouched.
And, finally, the claim that military recruitment fosters discrimination against gays and lesbians would also seem to be unassailable on its face. The recruitment process in fact involves selecting-out of gays and lesbians on the basis of irrational animus, and the military structure that recruitment supports practices further such discrimination in its daily operations. It is no more than a citation of official military policy on that question to say so.
Whether or not you think the Berkeley policy is a good idea, you can't claim it is based on unfounded or imaginary claims of fact.
This has become a cause celebre for both the right and the left fringes. Mostly it was a bad decision on the part of the recruiting office managers to place the unit in the town to begin with. They have a product to sell and there is no obligation to buy it (for now) and they picked a bad location.
Porn shops, on the other hand, can set up anywhere as the product they sell is universally sought after no matter what the churches and church ladies say. Otherwise the "Adult Shop" 15 miles from any populated area (but right off the freeway) in our area would go out of business. Apparently "Location, Location, Location" doesn't count very much in the porn business.
On the other hand it probably does when you are recruiting. (As an aside, CPT. Richard Lund, the Northern Bay Area recruitment officer chose the site "because of its proximity to UC Berkeley and to the BART station. It was formerly in Alameda." Probably a mistake.)
If normal people have a right to zone out porno shops on the basis of "community standards", they I logically Berkeleyites have just as much right to zone out military recruiters on the basis of their community's standards.
And Berkeleyites have a right to call us normal people "squares." And us normal people have a right to call Berkeleyites lunatics, boycott their businesses, and question whether such a crazy place is a wise location for Federal spending to occur.
You war mongers want to put a military recruiting office next door to the cannabis buyer's club and Good Vibrations! There goes the neighborhood!
In other words so long as communities only use morality based zoning to discriminate against things conservatives dislike then there is no reason for conservatives to object to it.
------
This having been said the Berkeley government is being hypocritical in a different way. I mean what is the real effect of this legislation (other than bad PR)? It's to decrease the number of relatively privleged rich and mainly white kids from Berkeley in the military and increase the number of kids from less privleged communities in the military.
Not to mention it was stupid at the outset to try and restrict military recruitment when their real object is with the national government's use of that military. Though going to school in Berkeley has made me cynical enough about the city to think that this just might entirely be about keeping their kids out of the military.
With regard to your statement, "How can recruiting people into the military not promote militarism? Is that not its function and effect, by definition?" --
what's militarism to you? Do you mean the military running the country? Not allowed under the Constitution, you know, no matter how many recruiting stations there are. The function of the stations, obviously, is to provide a place where kids can learn about the military and sign up if they are eligible and so choose. Or are you going to say they are impressed? Assuming you live in the US, you are dependent on the US military so please make some attempt to keep your reactions under control.
True. 13-year-olds these days have no idea how good they have it.
--Wait, what was the question again?
Are Sweden or Switzerland militarist? They both have active military drafts. The mere existence of a military force or even conscription is not militarism. What do you beleive is militarist in the recruiting station in Berkeley?
My problem with Berkeley is that, in a time of war, they consider military recruiters to be morally equivalent to pornographers.
Making a comparison of the supposed evils of military recruiters with the very real evils that result when a porn shop opens makes that whole argument a loser.
Ask the president:
''I don't know why you're talking about Sweden,'' Bush said. ''They're the neutral one. They don't have an army.''
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ''Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They're the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.'' Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. ''No, no, it's Sweden that has no army.''
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject.
(Bush did advise Lantos later that, perhaps after close consultation with the Secretaries of State and Defense, he had come around to the belief that Sweden had an army after all.)
Not true.
I might object to Berkeley's position on zoning because I think it is stupid and wrong-headed, without believing it runs afoul of the 1st Amendment. And that does, in fact, pretty much sum up my thinking on the matter.
When I was attending law school (coincidentally enough, at UC-Berkeley) I was genuinely shocked at how often intelligent, thoughtful people seemed to believe that their personal policy preferences on a plethora of issues were somehow mandated by the constitution. Despite the fact that the document was drafted centuries ago, by people living in a different culture, with a radically different productive economy, somehow it was "obvious" that the constitution mandated particular results with respect to legal issues unimaginable to its drafters and unmentioned in its text. And this was true as often of the Federalist Society membership as it was of the Environmental Law Review staff.
/shrug
I never thought things ought to be unconstitutional just because they annoyed me, let alone that they actually were.
Army, Navy, Air Force &Marines recruited about 180,000 people total in 2006. Thats only 6 per 100,000 people. Berkeley sounds OVERrepresented.
I don't think the city is within its rights at all. The federal government is bound by local zoning laws. It is just harassment and a petty attempted insult.
Most anti-vice zoning laws don't try to ameliorate secondary effects in the world as a whole. They simply seek to displace it, to not allow those secondary effect to take place in that town/city etc. Same for the Berkeley proposal (aside from the obvious pr value they hope to get) the "militarism" at issue is not whether a recruiting station would "by definition" increase militarism by adding soldiers to the military but whether it would increase "militarism" within Berkeley. Would it foster in Berkeley an increasingly pro-military mindset? Would it make Berkeley residents more inclined to think well of the miliatary and its role in society? Would it cause people to believe the military is the answer to more of today's problems.
Whether a military recruiting station has any local effects seems to me to be a question that has not even been asked, let alone a question to which there is an answer.
Oops, should be:
What about you? You're so smart. Does Norway have an army with expeditionary capability? Denmark? Finland? I'll bet neither you nor Brad DeLong can answer these questions.
you never ask question like that with God on your side.
ChrisO
you never ask question like that with God on your side.
</blockquote>
Hmmm... Thou shalt not kill (Exodus 20:13).
Ok I know that was snide and I apologize in advance... Well it was after..... but I typed it before you read it so that kinda counts.
I am like many I know in the Bay Area. We see Berkeley as our cute slow cousin that blurts out embarrassing things at a family gathering. They say the darnedest things but are essentially harmless. And while we may not agree with the lengths they go to make their point, we do tend to agree with the sentiment.
Actually the better translation from the Hebrew for Exodus 20:13 is "Thou Shall Not Murder."
With respect to the rest of the post, I would agree that Berkeley does have a way of doing what is otherwise impossible and making San Francisco, Oakland, and other bastions of liberal fanaticism in the Bay Area look sane.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."
Are Christians still compelled to follow this?
approve of? of course not. frankly a city should not approve or disapprove of ANY business (or non-profit) or govt. agency etc. what next? if i open up a shop serving fattening, salt laden foods is the city going to zone me so i'm not near impressionable adipose-enhancable kids? is a "we serve factory farmed meat" butcher shop going to p'o all the vegans?
assuming that the federal govt IS subject to city zoning laws (i have exactly zero idea whether this is true or not), then i would concede that berkeley has the authority to zone recruiting stations (as ridiculous as that sounds, it's at least internally consistent).
but the feds do have the authority to say SCREW BERKELEY and not GIVE them any $$$ in federal aid until berkeley gets it head out of its #(#$(#.
i have to admit though that i do find their argument "compelling" in a weirdly legalistic sort of way (again assuming the city has any authority to zone federal agencies which is in doubt). i think it's stupid, but stupid and legal are often one and the same
if so, that's only true for christians.
onward jewish soldiers then!
The same issue comes up, where I live, with the opposite of a porn zone: house churches, where worshippers gather in private homes, often with noisy hymns.
I kinda liked the one down the street from me and regretted it when they moved. They were Tongans, and all the South Sea islanders are wonderful choral singers. I'd have been less happy with some other sect, though.
Kevin T. Keith -- you need to check you facts.
The "don't ask/don't tell" policy was enacted as 10 USC §654, which states, in pertinent part:
It was added Nov. 30, 1993, by Public Law 103-160, Div A, Title V, Subtitle G, § 571(a)(1), 107 Stat. 1670.
If you remember your history, in 1993, both Houses of Congress had Democrat Party majorities, and the President was William J. Clinton (also a Democrat). Is that the basis for your assertion of "irrational animus"?
Do you object to the military obeying laws enacted by Congress and signed by the President?
I can see the argument for the ordinance for combatting militarism - they all have up militaristic posters, plus pictures of their commander, and, of course, probably the biggest offense in Berkeley, the much reviled George W. Bush.
Of course, there is the question whether they would all be as opposed if the recruiters were to put up pictures of Obama a year from now in the place of the ones of Bush.
"The Congress shall have Power...
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"
Recruiting is obviously part of raising armies and as a result is absolutely within the province of the Federal government to engage in without interference from the states.
"... I don't see that it speaks against Berkeley's point that military recruiting offices are associated with militarism in the same was that a adult video store (selling perfectly legal adult videos) is associated with other, unsavory, elements."
Yes, a porn video is legal. But it is not necessary as military defense is necessary. For a long time in the history of the US, porn videos and photos were outlawed. If this had a harmful effect other than a very mild restriction on some peoples' freedom, please tell me what it is. If someone is denied the videos, how is he or she harmed? But if the nation is unable to raise a military force it is in trouble. The only way I can see a recruiting station encouraging militarism would be if a bomb-Teheran enthusiast (therefore a civilian) were to hang around the place and try to convinve the kids and the staff that his views are correct. But it is a Federal area and the recruiting sergeant can order him out and tell the kids that his views don't represent the military. Anyway, "Bomb Teheran" has the same free speech rights as "Let copulation thrive". The latter speech, since it can be carried out on a personal and individual level, is far more likely to result in harm such as sexually transmitted diseases.
Or is there some other way the mere sight of a military recruiting station or person in uniform encourages military solutions to foreign problems?
Hmmm, on second thought, may be we should have. That would have scared the <> out of the bearded Talibums
(I just couldn't resist, sorry)
This was an excellent post, and Eugene should be somewhat embarrassed for failing (in his first two posts) to make the points you make.
Just the same as if she had been denied Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead by some overzealous liberal-fascist censor. It is categorically unacceptable for the government to put any restriction whatsoever on the content of speech between consenting adults (fighting words and manifest immediate danger excepted). Objection, implies facts not in evidence. Specifically, there is no evidence that moving the recruiting stations away from the areas prohibited by the statue would impede the ability to raise a military force. After all, they are not banning them outright, they are simply delineating where they may and may not be placed.
The only way I can see a porn-shop encouraging unhealthy sexual morality is if a NAMBLA nutcase set up shop and started handing out fliers advocating have sex with children. But it is private property and the owner can throw him out and that his view do not represent those of adults that want to enjoy pornography responsibly.
While I'm tempted to argue that an actual shooting war is infinitely more harmful than a passing case of the clap, I will demure on the relative merits of those two messages and only assert that both ought to have an equal right to their message. At any rate, if that judgment is to be made at all, it should properly be made by the elected representatives of the locality in question. If Berkeley residents want titty-bars and no military recruiting stations then that's more persuasive to me than arguments on the Internet about which speech is more harmful. Likewise (of course), for Salt Lake City with the judgment reversed.
Just to be clear, I don't support the zoning restrictions in question at all (irrespective of arguments that they are powerless to restrict the Federal gov't to being with). I likewise don't support zoning restrictions on adult businesses. I can accept the view that the community has the right to restrict the location of activities it finds objectionable, however, so long as it is carried out uniformly. I cannot accept the idea that the community has this right ONLY so long as their judgments are in agreement with yours.
If so, Berkeley's actions would seem to me to be as illegal as, say, the city of Oceanside putting up signs along Interstate 5 saying "Gays Not Welcome Here!"
Also, there's nothing Federally illegal about discriminating against queers, although California law prohibits it.
As for the relative risks of porn versus military service: porn encourages people in some really destructive behaviors, such as sadomasochism, and risky behaviors such as extreme promiscuity. They also incite people to get others to do such destructive and dangerous things (by representing such exploitation as particularly gratifying).
It is arguable that the promotion of risky sex by porn has killed Americans than have died in military service in the last 25 years.
"Love and marriage; love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage." Where, then, is the tension between the (marry your enemy) passage from Deuteronomy and the (love your enemy) passage from Matthew?
Um ... Aren't those military recruiters in the military?
Would it be OK with you if we had official, government-sanctioned "no-queer zones" in various cities? Would it be OK with the State of California?
How are the homeowners' associations of "planned communities" any different than local governments? In both cases, people choose to live in an area with an established governance system and in which that system can change the rules afte-the-fact according to a set of pre-existing rules.
In both cases, the governing authority can be responsive or non-responsive depending on the people running it and the rules they run it by.
It is decidedly hypocritical to say the Berkeleyites are not banning recruiting stations, only delimiting where they may and may not be placed. They are banning them throughout their jurisdiction, in effect saying they have the right to decide whether or not they should accept a government facility, although they benefit from government just as much as other people do. If their "right" were universally accepted, the government would be unable to set up a facility anywhere. You do believe the government should be able to set up facilities, right? And I suppose you (and the Berkeleyites) accept the need for governments to use military force at times? If you acknowledge this how can you claim that you should not even have to look at someone in uniform?
Your statement about the "Bomb Teheran" enthusiast implies that there are no checks operating against one person with an eccentric viewpoint, which is obviously wrong. But if someone believes in copulating indiscriminately, there is very little to hold him or her back.
"Are Sweden or Switzerland militarist?"
Ask the president: ...
Anderson - we're trying to have an intelligent discussion here. The fact that someone widely believed to be a dolt once said something dumb on the subject elsewhere is irrelevant. Let's try to pit the *best* of each side against each other.
Maybe, but only in in the same sense that it is arguable that the human race is the product of a genetic engineering experiment by Alien Space Bats. There is not much actual evidence for either proposition.
Seriously though, almost nobody wants to ban pornography or sex-based entertainment because of secondary effects like encouraging risky sex or alleged increases in crime. They want such businesses banned, or at least regulated, for the same reason they don't want a dog fighting pit or cock fighting ring in their neighborhood. They think the form of entertainment is disgusting, that its patrons are undesirables and that the business' presence lowers their property values.
Which leads to a question. If a business that provides entertainment by letting people watch a 20 year old insert giant plastic object into his or her rectum is protected by the 1st amendment, why aren't those that organize dog fights and cock fights protected as well?
are you serious? it's a cruelty to animals issue, not a speech issue
Again, that's your judgment while other reasonable people (myself included) come to the judgment that porn, kink (S&M included) is actually healthier than repression based on arbitrary social mores. What both of us think, however, is irrelevant considering that the people of Berkeley have elected representatives to decide.
It's one thing to have a moral judgment about something but it's quite another to insist, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that no one else could possibly have a different moral judgment.
First off, remember that I oppose the zoning laws in question on principle! However, if we support the right of localities to make moral judgments then, taking the devil's position:
If the government can show a compelling reason why they specifically need a recruiting station inside the city of Berkeley as opposed to one down the road in some other town that would rather have them and that they cannot meet that compelling need in any way then, yes, they can overrule it. The fact of the matter is that there's not much of a functional difference between a recruiting station in Berkeley and one in Richmond or Oakland.
Certainly it's absurd to argue that moving that recruiting station 2 miles down the road in any way impairs the military's ability to fight an actual war.
Please. The argument thats its about the well-being of the animals is almost laughable. Millions of chickens are ground up every month to provide us with tasteless McNuggets. Millions of dogs are killed every year because we find them a nuisance. Dog-Fighting, Cock-Fighting and other forms of animal baiting were originally banned because of the perceived effect on the audience.
But even assuming that the real issue ever has been cruelty to animals, so what? Why can't sexually explicit performances be banned on the grounds that they are harmful, and hence cruel, to the performers? Its fairly easy to document that sex workers suffer from higher rates of substance abuse and psychological problems.
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) released the following statement in response to the decision by the City Council of Berkeley, California to evict the U.S. Marine Corps Recruiting Station from the city.
“This is a slap in the face to all brave service men and women and their families. The First Amendment gives the City of Berkeley the right to be idiotic, but from now on they should do it with their own money. If the city can’t show respect for the Marines that have fought, bled and died for their freedom, Berkeley should not be receiving special taxpayer funded handouts. I am currently drafting legislation to ensure that American taxpayers aren’t forced to pay for this insult by rescinding all of the earmarks for Berkeley in the Omnibus Appropriations bill, and to transfer the funds to the Marine Corps.”
Second, I have never come across a case like that, but I assume some of you may have -- can a local police power regulation trump the lawful activity of the United States government in general and the military in particular? E.g., can the City of Podunk shut dow an Army gunnery range on the grounds that all that firing of guns is polluting the air in violation of LOCAL regulations? I don't think so, but if you do i'd like to hear your position on that.
I'd like to see that argument applied to some other scenarios. If some people don't like a certain government program, can they withhold payment of the part of their taxes representing the program? The government can always increase taxes on others to make up for the difference, and therefore ought to show a compelling reason for them to bear the cost of the program. Or if they consider certain government regulations an undue constraint on liberty, even if they have been voted into effect by Congress, can they refuse to abide by them? The fact is that military defense is basic to any nation. Like it or not, the freedom of living in your own neighborhood the way you want to is dependent on the ability of the nation to defend itself. Police and defense functions have high priority, and I certainly don't mind rubbing the Berkeleyites' noses in that fact now and then. Their sweet little world of liberated thinking depends on just what thery despise. If a recruiting station moves in, why can't they just move a few miles down the road?
and here's a shocker for you! cruelty to chickens is narrower than cruelty to dogs. why? because we value dogs more than chickens. duh. dogs are viewed as noble beasts. chickens are viewed as food.
however... even with chickens, cockfighting (gambling aspect aside) is viewed as torturous to the chickens and cruel
look, this is hardly new, and i can't believe you are ignorant of these basic assumptions in law.
"Millions of dogs are killed every year because we find them a nuisance. Dog-Fighting, Cock-Fighting and other forms of animal baiting were originally banned because of the perceived effect on the audience. "
that may be true, but so what? that's not why the laws persist today.
"But even assuming that the real issue ever has been cruelty to animals, so what?"
take it up with people who don't think you should be cruel to animals. im not justifying (or denying the reasons for ) the laws. im explaining to you why they exist.
" Why can't sexually explicit performances be banned on the grounds that they are harmful, and hence cruel, to the performers?"
because, feminist rubbish aside - adult performers have FREE WILL to engage or not engage. dogs don't
and fwiw, i am for legalization of prostitution, so don't even go there (free will to sell sex for money is fine with me)
" Its fairly easy to document that sex workers suffer from higher rates of substance abuse and psychological problems."
so what? the issue is CHOICE
we are viewed as having ownership (despite some super-leftist claims that we don't OWN pets) and responsibility towards animals. people, otoh, even in this ridiculous paternalistic and nannystate society are viewed as having the ability and right to make CHOICES, even potentially bad ones.
if you can't see the difference between an animal and a human, then get back to me later. your arguments are frankly ridiculous if you are arguing for dog fighting on a FREE SPEECH basis.
ask NARAL (smirk)
oh, and fwiw, john (nannystate) mccain (who i'd still take over obama or hillary any day of the week made much the argument you are making in regards to ultimate fighting.
he called MMA matches a "human cockfight" and sought to ban them as inhumane. of course he was wrong, but he's a nannystate ninny, so it's not surprising.
MMA fighters make a choice to fight.
WTF???!? How does that have anything to do with zoning regulations at all.
As discussed earlier, there is no Federal law (AFAIK, i may be wrong of course) that compels a community to waive zoning standards for military recruiting. If there is such a law, Berkeley is bound by it just like any other law. This is plainly obvious.
Agree. Agreed.Thank God! I can't imagine a Republic without thoughtful individuals like you going around rubbing people's noses until they understand the One True Way!I don't think most of Berkeleyites have any objection to a bona-fide defensive military and maybe even offensive actions when the need arises. They apparently don't think that is the current way the US Military is heading and I don't see that you have any right to substitute your opinion for theirs on a matter of local control. Absolutely agree. Now, when a titty-bar moves into your neighborhood, you move down the road.
It's amusing to me because (I work in academia, go figure) I'm constantly arguing against the liberal impulse to substitute their judgment for a more relevant, democratically legitimate one. Now I have to get attacked from the right in exactly the same way - an insistence that a local judgment on a matter of local import is somehow less legitimate that the One True Path.
Sure, they'd allow for legit defense, although what catastrophe would have to be happening on their doorstep to convince them is a conundrum.
I am not convinced the Pinkos have geopolitical differences of opinion on the WOT.
I think it's something else.
If so, can that activity be regulated or limited by local ordinances,regulations or state laws?
If such activity can be so limited, what activities cannot?
Um, that's 60 per 100,000 people.
cite
The poster seems to think that all opinions are created equal: E.G. that Berkley's 'feelings' that military recruiters are a social harm comparable to how others 'feelings' about porn shops. Why, how could you ever judge between the two? Everyone's feelings are equally valid no matter what they are, right?
Um, no.
Take a moment to think about which would generate more outrage: An ad for the marines airing on the same slot as a TV show for kids, or one for a porn shop or website? But don't think too long about it.
Of course, you could argue that that's just how the majority thinks, if your 'everything is equal to everything' mindset is that unshakable... in which case you can't be helped. Sorry.
Its like the old joke where a police officer comes across a rape in an alley and promptly shouts "Hey, both of you stop that right now!"
I don't think most of Berkeleyites have any objection to a bona-fide defensive military and maybe even offensive actions when the need arises. They apparently don't think that is the current way the US Military is heading and I don't see that you have any right to substitute your opinion for theirs on a matter of local control.
The US Military is headed by a civilian named George W Bush. So is their dispute with Bush? They might say so, but their actions show otherwise. They are in conflict with the military itself, which they want to keep out. There is no tradition that the location of government facilities is subject to local control. Many government facilities or government-sponsored facilities do in fact get shoved down the throats of locals; in a town near where I live, more than one treatment center for substance abusers was sited there compulsorily. What you are arguing for is some kind of Utopia where a locality can keep out anything it considers offensive. I've pointed out, more than once, the problems associated with this attitude.
There is a connection between what Berkeley is trying to do and my example of some people refusing to pay a tax for an activity they don't like. The Berkeleyites are claiming the right to look over the activities of government and not support those they don't like.
And do the mayor's constituents have "distaste" for an enemy that will strap explosives around the bodies of women with Downs Syndrome and radio contol detonate those explosives to kill people shopping in open air markets? If so, there's been no sign or such distaste.
It is easy to be "moral" when someone else bears all the risks and pays all the costs.
There are plenty of matters on which I think that various localities are objectively wrong. Denying gays the right to marry is, I think, objectively wrong. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept the democratic judgment of the various states to the contrary. I still think they are wrong but I refuse to elevate my personal opinion (no matter how right I think it is) over the clearly expressed wishes of the people.
Damn my commitment to democracy! Damn it all to hell!
Their actions could just as well show what they claim to show - an opposition to the current military policy and, by extension, the not-infrequent connection of that policy to rise in militaristic attitudes in this country. You will have to do better to prove that they are opposed to the concept of a military per se.
Since I'm already feeding the trolls, I'm quite certain that no one in Berkeley is in favor suicide bombing. One can be against the war in Iraq without being pro Al Qaeda (or pro Shiite death squads)
Funny, but all the cities that are at actual risk of terrorist attack (NY, Chicago, SF, LA, Boston) are solidly democratic (Kerry by a landslide in all 4) despite the fact that he would supposedly fail to protect them. Meanwhile all the citizens of flyover country go apeshit every time OBL releases another screed.
We (denizens of the big cities) are taking the risks and (in the case of NY) paying the costs so don't try that sanctimonious bullshit on me.
My! Must have stuck a nerve.
No one said you were pro Al-Qaeda or pro death squads (Shia, Sunni, Serb, Argentine, Nazi, or -- the list can go on and on, history is full of them). Interesting that your "argument" was reduced to that.
While I appreciate your belief in democracy, I also note your intolerance of people who don't share your opinions.
Be safe. And, be glad that there are many who are ensuring your safety, and the right to express opinions that disagree with others.
Except when those well-intentioned but woefully misinformed people extract a cost for my safety well in excess of the benefits. In that case, I'm not glad but rather vexed at those whose sincere desire to do good results in endless disaster.