If you don't own any clothes, can the state force you to buy them?

A simple question: If someone doesn't own any clothes, can the state force them to buy them, or can they walk the streets naked?

I thought of this during the time that the U.S. Supreme Court was debating Obamacare, and if people could be forced to purchase it. Legally, if someone doesn't have clothes, could laws make them use their money to purchase something? One argument is you can't drive a car without a license, and must "buy" one, or drive without insurance, so maybe people will be told they can't walk in public or enter public stores without clothes. But what if you don't have any, and do not accept charity? Can a law force all citizens to use their money for a specific purpose?

If you don't own any clothes how can you go into the store to buy some clothes??
You will be kicked out of the store if you don't have a shirt or shoes on and arrested for indecent exposure if you don't have any pants on unless you are a women then well you better have a blouse on also!!

I guess if you don't have any clothes you are kind of stuck in your house till some charitable person decides to come along and at least lend you something so you can leave the house and obtain some somehow??

It's not the same as obamacare!
For one you still have the option you can just stay home!
Second a simple call to a nearby charity will probable get you clothes free of charge delivered to your door if you ask nicely and let them know your plight!
And third you could have a very nice wardrobe for the cost of one month's insurance premium!! And that month's clothes will probably last you a year while the premium will only last you a month!!

a reply to: Aleister

I've heard of people going to jail naked and the cops won't let them leave until someone brings them some clothes to wear. Churches usually help out if they have nobody else. The jail won't, that's for sure.

Practically everywhere has laws for indecent exposure/public lewdness so I'd say they can't exactly force you to spend your money on clothes, they just lock you up until you come to your senses. If you keep pushing it they'll probably put you in a mental hospital.

a reply to: dawnstar

The premise of the question is you don't accept charity. Can someone be forced to either accept charity or to spend their money for a specific item? If someone doesn't want to buy clothes, shouldn't that be their choice and, not having any, should they be denied access to the public arena? Those are my questions three.

a reply to: Aleister

There are outside factors to that situation that would making being clothed desirable. " Phrasing the question of "having to buy" clothes is not a proper way to present it. You can get clothed with having to buy such. So I'm assuming you are really asking if you can be made to "wear" clothing. And that is a good question.

A couple of decades ago there was a young fellow that caused a stir on the campus at Berkeley because he wanted to go naked to class. As I recall, he sometimes wore a simple handkerchief positioned in front. (We must assume he was not well endowed and thus, did not suffer from the dreaded "ding-dong" effect while walking.) I wondered what happened to him?

a reply to: dfens

So the state can mandate a specific way you must spend your money. The start of the slippery slope. I'm sure at many points in history clothes were not mandatory - in fact, maybe a prude (or health professional) somewhere started the concept of laws and government for this specific purpose (not wanting to see Uncle Jim running the hills naked).

a reply to: Aleister

Re: Obamacare

I had a well-meaning liberal friend make the argument that the government could constitutionally compel you to buy and sell and engage in commerce in any market in which they themselves were heavily involved because they made it an interstate commerce issue just by being involved in that market. Thus, they had the power to regulate and control your interaction in it.

When I pointed out that by virtue of the government's deep involvement in entitlement spending, there is really no existing market they do not have a deep, monetary interest in meaning they could pretty much take that justification to compel and control citizen involvement in every market.

He had to admit that his reading of the Commerce Clause and how he understood it would indeed allow for a pretty much centrally planned and controlled economy.

So, the answer to your question is yes because the government allowed entitlement monies to be spent on clothing, there are some liberal schools of thought that would say they government could indeed force you to buy clothing and even mandate what type of clothing you must buy and how much.

Just like Obamacare and its mandates on insurance.

a reply to: Aliensun

No, not a question of nakedness as much as "can the state force a specific purchase" on their citizens. Banning nudity may have been the first state-forced law which, in effect, dictated that the state owned your money. Just a mental construct question, not an advocacy of universal nudity.

Driving is a "privelage , " not a "right ". ...So you can't really make that comparison .... As for clothing , there are certain laws in place state by state regarding public nudity. I think that it's a state per state issue. But, I think it is a federal issue when it comes to Heath code......so no...you can't be forced to buy clothing, but you can go to jail. There are certain nudist colonies out there, but I'm not sure how that works. .... the only way you would get away with not wearing clothing is if you lived in the tropics or somewhere warm all year.

a reply to: Aleister

If you refuse charity, you'd have to find you some burlap sacks and cut some holes out or grocery bags. Regardless, it's unacceptable in society to walk around naked. You will get locked up if that's how you want to live. You're not going to get locked up for Obamacare if you refuse to pay. It's a pretty ridiculous analogy.

a reply to: dfens

But what if the person didn't want to cut up their burlap bags (I certainly don't). Yes, it's unacceptable to walk around naked in public, but the premise is what if a person has no clothes, won't buy them, won't accept charity, and won't cut up their burlap bags, has the state the right to step in and control their purchase? Is this where the line is drawn, that the state owns someone's money?

a reply to: Aleister

The premise of the question is you don't accept charity. Can someone be forced to either accept charity or to spend their money for a specific item? If someone doesn't want to buy clothes, shouldn't that be their choice and, not having any, should they be denied access to the public arena? Those are my questions three.
1. No they cannot - you can choose to go to jail instead.
2. Yes it is their choice
3. Public indecency laws cover this in almost all countries so although they are not denied access they will be jailed for accessing.

So although you are not forced you are coerced by the fact that if you don't adhere to local clothing customs and laws you could easily end up in jail or beaten up by those who with particularly strong beliefs.

a reply to: johnb

Yet another angle (pun intended) of the question. People will beat you up if you don't own any clothes nor accept charity nor cut up your burlap bags. When you have those people arrested, can you then go into the courtroom to testify without wearing clothes?

People are pretty serious about this I see, and I expected more lighthearted responses. But since this has turned into a very serious topic, has this "mandatory spending" ever been challenged in court? Lawyers, that question is for you (or your firm).

a reply to: Aleister

You already know the answer to this one. Yes the state does own your money. It's called taxes. They also have 'fees' and 'rights' that you must pay for. The state doesn't necessarily have to take your money from you, that's why they created thousands upon thousands of laws that make it illegal for you to not give it to them.

originally posted by: Aleister
So the state can mandate a specific way you must spend your money.

The state has been mandating that ever since we've been paying taxes... My tax money goes to fund wars and incompetent public schools, but it also funds the road that leads to my house, the fire department that saves my life and the parks I visit.

a reply to: Aleister

lol i would think you would find it difficult to say the least getting the police to arrest anybody for beating you up for being naked ( i was thinking of the more fundamental countries around the world) and as we see daily the police are often the worst for these types of abuses.

a reply to: dfens

Taxes, of course, are built into the system. This specific thing I'm pointing out is that this is the one area where the state mandates a specific purchase and tells you that you cannot leave the inside of your living area without it. Are there any others? Or was this the starting point of no return for the creation of personally restricting laws, and maybe even the start of laws and organized restrictive religion itself.

I guess the simple answer is NO they cannot "force" you to buy clothing. But if you go out into public naked you would be subject to the applicable laws of public decency.

a reply to: tinner07

But that would be forcing someone, or else subjecting them to a life of voluntary imprisonment if they want to enjoy the benefits of the taxes they pay and the city they live in. I just think someone might have a legal case on this topic, but first they'd have to give away all their clothes and walk out into a public area and get arrested to test it (and no, I will not be the first). Has this ever been done? Again, a question for a good lawyer to answer, or one who wants to get their name in the news. Where's Clarence Darrow or William Kunstler when we need them? Dead, I suppose (just their luck).

You always have the option to make your own clothes, you can just make a loin cloth and that should be enough to keep you covered. LOL
But the state is working on telling us what to buy and what to do. They are slowly taking control of everything and everyone.