27 Jan 07
Originally posted by MerkSmokers are already criminals. At least pot smokers are.
This prostotution legalization thing is just a way to get more tax money. There is no other way to explain it.
While people are trying to limit through legislation other risk behaviors such eating foods with transfats, people are trying to legalize prostitution. As if prostotution is safer then eating transfats.
They try to legalize prostitution while making criminals out of smokers.
There are some that say legalizing prostitution lowers spousal abuse. I have never seen any stats to back it up, so I can't say whether it is true or not. It would be interesting to see the spousal abuse/domestic violence statistics for Nevada vs. the rest of the U.S.
27 Jan 07
Originally posted by Merk"People"? You make it sound like everyone who wants to decriminalize prostitution wants to criminalize smoking tobacco.
This prostotution legalization thing is just a way to get more tax money. There is no other way to explain it.
While people are trying to limit through legislation other risk behaviors such eating foods with transfats, people are trying to legalize prostitution. As if prostotution is safer then eating transfats.
They try to legalize prostitution while making criminals out of smokers.
Anyway, to hold both positions is not inconsistent. Second hand smoke directly hurts people other than the ones smoking. Prostitution does not directly harm anyone other than possibly those participating.
31 Jan 07
Originally posted by arrakisis a prostitute a "consenting adult" ?
I say it's time we made it legal so that it can be controlled, taxed and safe.
The woman would be required to maintain a license. In order to keep the license active the woman would undergo a physical examination by a doctor every day.
Here are some sites that have good arguments about this:
The Case for Legalized Prostitution
by Paul Armentano, De ...[text shortened]... /28/lfm270.shtml
Legalized Prostitution
http://www.liberator.net/articles/prostitution.html
in many cases i suspect not, eg the drug addict, or person doing it out of desperation to do with crime or debt or threats.
31 Jan 07
Originally posted by eamon oSo why is a drug addict not a consenting adult?
is a prostitute a "consenting adult" ?
in many cases i suspect not, eg the drug addict, or person doing it out of desperation to do with crime or debt or threats.
What is your position? Do you think prostitution be legalised?
It already is legal in many countries and even in those countries where the guvamint bans the voluntary exchange of value for value I'm sure you can find a prostitute.
...and what of those prostitutes that are not drug addicts, or desperate, or 'to do with crime' or to pay off debt?
The only valid point you make is in regards to persons forced into prostitution under threat. If prostitution is legal at least the person being threatened can more easily approach the police for assistance.
31 Jan 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, the purpose of any law is to constrain freedom in order to bring about a greater good.
Why don't we just let people be free? Stop with the nanny state already.
Are you in favour of the abolition of laws generally? Would you equate the nanny state with the enactment and enforcement of legislation?
31 Jan 07
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeI disagree. The purpose of laws in the United States is to protect individuals' civil rights. Now, I agree with you in principle (I'm a utilitarian), but I feel that working through the American philosophy of maximum freedom with protection of rights is the way to bring about the greater good.
Well, the purpose of any law is to constrain freedom in order to bring about a greater good.
Are you in favour of the abolition of laws generally? Would you equate the nanny state with the enactment and enforcement of legislation?
I am in favor of the abolition of most laws. I would much prefer to start re-examining and eliminating laws each year rather than the current practice of just adding more and more of them.
Would you equate the nanny state with the enactment and enforcement of legislation?
No. Whether or not a law contributes to the "nanny state" depends on the law.
31 Jan 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBut to protect one person's rights, one must necessarily restrict the freedom of another person to infringe upon them. Hence, my point stands: laws always function to restrict freedom. Can you think of a single counterexample?
I disagree. The purpose of laws in the United States is to protect individuals' civil rights. Now, I agree with you in principle (I'm a utilitarian), but I feel that working through the American philosophy of maximum freedom with protection of rights is the way to bring about the greater good.
I am in favor of the abolition of most laws. I would mu ...[text shortened]... lation?
No. Whether or not a law contributes to the "nanny state" depends on the law.[/b]
Also, whose civil rights are traffic laws protecting? Doesn't this prove your justification for laws is insufficiently comprehensive?
Why would a law banning the buying of sex be an example of the nanny state?
The fact is, making prostitution legal has not succeeded in eliminating some of the undesirable concomitants of prostitution. Demand for prostitution goes up when it is made legal; that demand is met by more desperate women; and purveyers of illegal drugs and human traffickers take advantage of the liberal environment. By curbing demand, however, these three undesirable factors are inhibited.
I also don't believe that, in general and most of the time, prostitution is a good thing. The mere fact that it involves free transaction between consenting adults does not suffice to make it a good thing, Because it is not a good thing, it is good to deter it.
01 Feb 07
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeFor there to be a crime there needs to be a perpetrator and a victim. In the case of two willing parties getting together and exchanging value for value there is neither a perpetrator nor a victim.
But to protect one person's rights, one must necessarily restrict the freedom of another person to infringe upon them. Hence, my point stands: laws always function to restrict freedom. Can you think of a single counterexample?
Also, whose civil rights are traffic laws protecting? Doesn't this prove your justification for laws is insufficiently compre ...[text shortened]... not suffice to make it a good thing, Because it is not a good thing, it is good to deter it.
You have a right to live free from fraud, force and the threat of force. If you have that right then your nieghbour has that right also. So laws that protect a persons life, liberty and property do not infringe upon anyones right to mess with your life, liberty and property because they never had that right in the first place.
Why would a law banning the buying of sex be an example of the nanny state?
Because when the buying and selling of sex is done voluntarily it aint nobodies business but the buyer and the seller.
I also don't believe that, in general and most of the time, prostitution is a good thing.
That is fine, you may like to offer advice to prostitutes and those that make use of their services, but enlisting the services of guvamint thugs to do your dirty work (forcing your values on others) is never good.
How about this one: I don't believe that, in general and most of the time, sitting in front of the computer sticking your nose in other peoples business is a good thing, when you could be at the gym working out. Should we limit the amount of time a person is allowed to watch tv, blow time on the puter, etc etc etc etc etc all for the greater good, don't you know.
01 Feb 07
Originally posted by WajomaI don't accept your premises.
For there to be a crime there needs to be a perpetrator and a victim. In the case of two willing parties getting together and exchanging value for value there is neither a perpetrator nor a victim.
You have a right to live free from fraud, force and the threat of force. If you have that right then your nieghbour has that right also. So laws that protect ...[text shortened]... tch tv, blow time on the puter, etc etc etc etc etc all for the greater good, don't you know.
In the case of prostitution, there are, in fact, perpetrators and victims. The perpetrators are mainly men who buy sex and mainly women who sell it. Now, I concede that many buyers and some sellers are neither perpetrators nor victims. Then again, many are. Crucially, *enough* are, and to a sufficient extent, to make the enactment of public laws banning the buying of sex well-motivated. In addition, the undesirability of prostitution per se, an affront to female dignity, and the undesirable milieu prostitution creates, provide further grounds for deterring it through legislation.
More basically, I don't agree that the good is best served in all circumstances by maximizing personal freedom, because people, being venal, sometimes do bad things with the freedom they are given--like when men use vulnerable or troubled women addicted to drugs to gratify their sexual appetite, and those women are too troubled or addicted not to pursue their best interests by refraining from selling sex. Hence, there are some cases where government intervention is justified.
01 Feb 07
2 edits
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeCandy's bad for your teeth; people should go to prison for selling it.
I don't accept your premises.
In the case of prostitution, there are, in fact, perpetrators and victims. The perpetrators are mainly men who buy sex and mainly women who sell it. Now, I concede that many buyers and some sellers are neither perpetrators nor victims. Then again, many are. Crucially, *enough* are, and to a sufficient extent, to make the ning from selling sex. Hence, there are some cases where government intervention is justified.
Why do you think that your opinion on what is "good" for other people should be enforced through penal measures?
And why is it OK for men to use "troubled" women for sex as long as the "troubled" women don't get paid for it? (OK in the sense that the men don't have to go to prison for it).
01 Feb 07
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeYou haven't clarified when two willing parties make the jump from a voluntary exchange of value for value to being a perpetrator and a victim. Is it because of drug addiction? (Addiction is a choice, there is not one 'addiction' that has not been beaten) Then if it is illegal to purchase sex from a drug addict or needy troubled person then it should also be illegal to purchase anything from that person.
I don't accept your premises.
In the case of prostitution, there are, in fact, perpetrators and victims. The perpetrators are mainly men who buy sex and mainly women who sell it. Now, I concede that many buyers and some sellers are neither perpetrators nor victims. Then again, many are. Crucially, *enough* are, and to a sufficient extent, to make the ...[text shortened]... ning from selling sex. Hence, there are some cases where government intervention is justified.
per se, an affront to female dignity,
Again these are your 'values' and not neccessarily those of the people who engage in prostitution. Note also that I use the word 'person', or are you suggesting only banning women from selling sex.
because people, being venal, sometimes do bad things with the freedom they are given
Two points here:
1/ If a person has no choice but to do 'good' (In this case we'll use 'good' in the not so humble opinion of Pawnokeyhole) things, that person can no longer be considered good, that person can no longer be considered a total human being. They become no better than dumb animals responding to threats of force, or a piece of machinery. To live as man, man must be able to act on his own reason.
2/ You don't 'give' people freedom. People have it. What we are discussing here is should busybodies stop 'taking' freedom from those that choose to voluntarily exchange value for value.
Prostitution was legalised recently in NZ, it was an utter non-event.
06 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderFirst, my argument was about buying, not selling. I think selling sex should be legal; however, I think that there may be a pragmatic case for making the buying of sex illegal, because it reduces a grave harm, wrought mainly by selfish men on troubled women.
Candy's bad for your teeth; people should go to prison for selling it.
Why do you think that your opinion on what is "good" for other people should be enforced through penal measures?
And why is it OK for men to use "troubled" women for sex as long as the "troubled" women don't get paid for it? (OK in the sense that the men don't have to go to prison for it).
I also think that, in this connection, there *is* a case for my opinion on what is good for others being enforced through penal measures. Not because it is my opinion--it's beside the point whose opinion it is--because it could be the correct opinion, objectively speaking. (I'm still open to persuasion.) I'm certainly not going to fallacious argue in reverse that, just because you hold your opinions subjectively, those opinions cannot be objectively correct! Kindly show me the same rational courtesy.
Obviously, it doesn't make sense to legislate against every harm by curtailing people's freedom. I think it depends on the magnitude of the harm, and the utility of the freedom in a particular domain. We don't allow companies, or lone sharks, to sell chewing tobacco to kids, because of the substance's high carcinogenic potential. I don't feel bad about curtailing their freedom in this instance, do you? I guess my take on prostitution is that men's demand for sex keeps it going, and that at least some forms of prostitution are a major social and individual ill for many of the party's involved, so it's good to curtail men's freedom to avail of it.
I think the call for legally banning the buying of sex is weaker in the case of high-class hookers, who are in control of their lives, than streetwalkers, many of whom involuntarily exchange sex they dislike for drugs they crave. Perhaps men should only be able to legally buy sex from licensed prostitutes, whose autonomy and well-being can be better assured.