| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/24/2011 06:22:22 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
By your reasoning, government should return to prohibition and ban alcohol...just think of the lives that would save...far more than seatbelt laws, helmet laws and the like. (Didn't we try that before?) While we're at it, why not just ban all tobacco use, fast food, motorcycles, snack food, refined sugar, contact sports, any "extreme" sports and sex (unless a license to reproduce has been issued, of course) along with any other "risky behavior". Then require mandatory exercise, legislate nutritional meals and physicals...how about universal public health care while we're at it. |
The "yes" about your professions was a bit tongue-in-cheek. All those professions have obvious benefits for society. Prostitution does not have such an obvious benefit. We all know, if you apply yourself, most people can get it for free.
You talk like this is all beyond the pale, but I'd get ready for some of this. We aren't going to "ban" sugar, but we can tax it and drive decisions that way. Smoking is being banned and taxed into slow obsolescence. Even China, the largest tobacco company in the world, is starting to ban smoking in public places. Snack foods are being banned from schools.
It seems like you think that if you can sound incredulous enough that I'll be embarassed out of my position, but that's not the case. To hell with your incredulity. ;) People do things that are obviously bad for them and I'm comfortable with making societal decisions about these things at times. I realize that is anathema to a libertarian...but I'm not a libertarian.
Message edited by author 2011-05-24 18:25:23. |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 06:27:24 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I realize that is anathema to a libertarian...but I'm not a libertarian. |
I am not familiar with this term Doc...does it involve a rubber hose and a water bag? :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 06:27:51 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... There are times when society knows better than the individual and can outlaw something that is good for neither the society nor the individual. Not wearing a seatbelt is a classic example. Not smoking in public is another. |
Considering that most high speed accidents involving people not wearing seat belts result in grievous bodily injuries or death, the only people that are inconvenienced are the police and medical personnel. There truly is not need to legislate common sense...you take a risk you pay the price. |
But if you live, you cost society a lot of money while the docs scurry around sticking tubes in you and giving you anathemas.
Again, I'm fully comfortable with a seatbelt law and they have saved 15,000 lives a year according to the people who calculate these things. For 15,000 lives I say screw your minorly inconvenienced personal liberty.
Message edited by author 2011-05-24 18:28:47. |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 06:28:32 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I realize that is anathema to a libertarian...but I'm not a libertarian. |
I am not familiar with this term Doc...does it involve a rubber hose and a water bag? :O)
Ray |
Only the one I beat you over the head with... :D |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 06:30:17 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I realize that is anathema to a libertarian...but I'm not a libertarian. |
I am not familiar with this term Doc...does it involve a rubber hose and a water bag? :O)
Ray |
Only the one I beat you over the head with... :D |
Aha... I see you are familiar with police interrogation methods. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 09:19:24 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
As to the psychological issue, my answer is: So what? There are any number of jobs that can have adverse psychological effects on those who work in them. Police officers, soldiers, 911 operators, EMTs, prison guards, bus drivers, schoolteachers, convenience store clerks and so on, maybe even allergists. Should those occupations also be illegal? |
My answer on a fundamental level could be yes. I do not believe in personal liberty uber alles. There are times when society knows better than the individual and can outlaw something that is good for neither the society nor the individual. Not wearing a seatbelt is a classic example. Not smoking in public is another.
I understand the libertarian point of view. Heaven knows we have enough libertarians on this site to choke a horse. I just don't agree with it and find it lacking when pushed too far. |
Please elaborate on which of those professions you think should be eliminated because of the psychological damage they cause to the workers in that field. I'd love to hear how you'd propose we get along without police officers or the like. Perhaps you'd just give the criminals a big hug, hope they'd have a change of heart and instead of stealing from you, they'd want to sit around, hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
By your reasoning, government should return to prohibition and ban alcohol...just think of the lives that would save...far more than seatbelt laws, helmet laws and the like. (Didn't we try that before?) While we're at it, why not just ban all tobacco use, fast food, motorcycles, snack food, refined sugar, contact sports, any "extreme" sports and sex (unless a license to reproduce has been issued, of course) along with any other "risky behavior". Then require mandatory exercise, legislate nutritional meals and physicals...how about universal public health care while we're at it. |
Well there is a bit of a difference there. Police officers are serving the public not themselves. I doubt any of them would claim that being an officer is a right. |
Are you saying that prostitutes serve no role? If not, why have their been prostitutes since...forever. It's not called the world's oldest profession for nothing.
Police officers get paid too don't they? Their motives aren't purely altruistic.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2011 09:28:41 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
By your reasoning, government should return to prohibition and ban alcohol...just think of the lives that would save...far more than seatbelt laws, helmet laws and the like. (Didn't we try that before?) While we're at it, why not just ban all tobacco use, fast food, motorcycles, snack food, refined sugar, contact sports, any "extreme" sports and sex (unless a license to reproduce has been issued, of course) along with any other "risky behavior". Then require mandatory exercise, legislate nutritional meals and physicals...how about universal public health care while we're at it. |
The "yes" about your professions was a bit tongue-in-cheek. All those professions have obvious benefits for society. Prostitution does not have such an obvious benefit. We all know, if you apply yourself, most people can get it for free.
You talk like this is all beyond the pale, but I'd get ready for some of this. We aren't going to "ban" sugar, but we can tax it and drive decisions that way. Smoking is being banned and taxed into slow obsolescence. Even China, the largest tobacco company in the world, is starting to ban smoking in public places. Snack foods are being banned from schools.
It seems like you think that if you can sound incredulous enough that I'll be embarassed out of my position, but that's not the case. To hell with your incredulity. ;) People do things that are obviously bad for them and I'm comfortable with making societal decisions about these things at times. I realize that is anathema to a libertarian...but I'm not a libertarian. |
You say prostitution doesn't benefit society...so? Others would disagree. Maybe you personally wouldn't benefit from it, but others might.
If you apply yourself, you can be responsible for your own security, fire safety and you can teach your kids at home, etc.
I don't give a damn if you're embarrassed or not, I can tell you're not going to change your mind about wanting the government making sure you wipe your bottom and wash your hands. Maybe if it was your own personal liberties on the chopping block you'd think differently.
Message edited by author 2011-05-24 21:32:46. |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 09:29:38 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Are you saying that prostitutes serve no role? |
No beneficial role. As George Costanza said, "Why would I pay for something when, if I applied myself, I might get it for free?"
Message edited by author 2011-05-24 21:30:06. |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 09:39:37 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Are you saying that prostitutes serve no role? |
No beneficial role. As George Costanza said, "Why would I pay for something when, if I applied myself, I might get it for free?" |
Then what about all those other things that are much more harmful...alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, sugar, fatty foods. Justin Beiber. Do they have a beneficial role? They kill far more people than prostitution, or not wearing a seat belt...but they're absolutely legal. I can eat 10,000 calories a day in twinkies until they have to use a crane to get my obese ass out of bed, or smoke 'til my lungs turn black or drink til my liver fails. How can this be? According to you, it's the government's job to protect people from themselves. Those things should be banned.
Message edited by author 2011-05-24 21:51:04. |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 10:05:49 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
According to you, it's the government's job to protect people from themselves. Those things should be banned. |
You say government like its a foul thing. Government is what we as a nation decide to do together. One of the government's roles is enforcing what we, as a state or nation, decide to do as a community. If we decided to be safe we would ban fatty foods, handguns, alcohol and automobiles. But we as a people have decided we like fatty foods, handguns, alcohol and automobiles. We have also decided that we don't like the idea of our daughters and sisters earning their living on their backs. It need not be rational. It, the government is merely the tool of we the governed, and we are not a purely rational people. |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 10:44:33 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
According to you, it's the government's job to protect people from themselves. Those things should be banned. |
You say government like its a foul thing. Government is what we as a nation decide to do together. One of the government's roles is enforcing what we, as a state or nation, decide to do as a community. If we decided to be safe we would ban fatty foods, handguns, alcohol and automobiles. But we as a people have decided we like fatty foods, handguns, alcohol and automobiles. We have also decided that we don't like the idea of our daughters and sisters earning their living on their backs. It need not be rational. It, the government is merely the tool of we the governed, and we are not a purely rational people. |
You believe that what we, the people, want matters to the government?
Now that's funny.
Even if it were, it's not simply majority rule. The wants of the many do not trump the rights of a few.
If it were, we'd still have things like slavery, segregation and women without the right to vote. And of course there would be no civil rights, women's rights, gay rights etc.
Message edited by author 2011-05-24 22:49:47. |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 10:48:47 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Are you saying that prostitutes serve no role? |
No beneficial role. As George Costanza said, "Why would I pay for something when, if I applied myself, I might get it for free?" |
Free... where on earth was George thinking he could get it for free. Wake up and smell the coffee... nothing in life is free.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/24/2011 10:56:28 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Even if it were, it's not simply majority rule. The wants of the many do not trump the rights of a few.
|
Likewise, the wants of the few do not trump the rights of the many. The argument from a tyranny of the majority does not get very far.
In a similar vein, pointing out a practical, real-world inconsistency does not invalidate a philosophical position. If it did, it would be hard to hold a position on nearly anything. |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 12:17:02 AM · #189 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
You believe that what we, the people, want matters to the government?
Now that's funny. |
What a horrible country you must live in. Have you considered moving to a country that has a government that you have some measure of faith in? Or does none exist on this planet? |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 01:01:22 AM · #190 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
You believe that what we, the people, want matters to the government?
Now that's funny. |
What a horrible country you must live in. Have you considered moving to a country that has a government that you have some measure of faith in? Or does none exist on this planet? |
Oh yay! It's the "This is America, love it or get the Hell out" argument.
Really? |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 01:06:24 AM · #191 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Even if it were, it's not simply majority rule. The wants of the many do not trump the rights of a few.
|
Likewise, the wants of the few do not trump the rights of the many. The argument from a tyranny of the majority does not get very far.
In a similar vein, pointing out a practical, real-world inconsistency does not invalidate a philosophical position. If it did, it would be hard to hold a position on nearly anything. |
So, how does two people exercising their "pursuit of happiness" by agreeing to have sex in exchange for money infringe upon your rights or the rights of anyone not directly involved in the transaction?
Did you point out anything practical in this thread? Other than your insistence that the "government knows best". |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 01:58:27 AM · #192 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
So, how does two people exercising their "pursuit of happiness" by agreeing to have sex in exchange for money infringe upon your rights or the rights of anyone not directly involved in the transaction?
Did you point out anything practical in this thread? Other than your insistence that the "government knows best". |
You miss the whole argument. So few prostitutes are exercising their "pursuit of happiness" that whatever benefit is gained from their freedom is outweighed by the personal and societal harm done on a massive scale by those who feel they have no other economic options other than to sell their bodies. They bring upon themselves and pay such a high price that it is worthwhile to discourage them from doing it in the first place. If the cost of this is preventing the few who truly want to sell their bodies, so be it.
I liked this quote from the pro/con site. I think it hits the nail on the head:
The prostitution lobby wants us to believe that prostitution is female sexual liberation and a way for women to give full expression to their deepest sexual fantasies. These ideas are based on an uncritical acceptance of the old libertarian concept of individual free choice and completely lack a critique of society and an analysis of male power. What they also care to ignore is that the concept of free will requires the existence of several possible options to choose from and the control of the person in making a choice.
Instead of talking about prostitution as a choice, we must ask ourselves: If prostitution is a free choice, why is it that it is always the women and girls who have the fewest alternatives who are the ones who end up in prostitution?
Message edited by author 2011-05-25 01:59:46. |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 02:35:21 AM · #193 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
So, how does two people exercising their "pursuit of happiness" by agreeing to have sex in exchange for money infringe upon your rights or the rights of anyone not directly involved in the transaction?
Did you point out anything practical in this thread? Other than your insistence that the "government knows best". |
You miss the whole argument. So few prostitutes are exercising their "pursuit of happiness" that whatever benefit is gained from their freedom is outweighed by the personal and societal harm done on a massive scale by those who feel they have no other economic options other than to sell their bodies. They bring upon themselves and pay such a high price that it is worthwhile to discourage them from doing it in the first place. If the cost of this is preventing the few who truly want to sell their bodies, so be it.
I liked this quote from the pro/con site. I think it hits the nail on the head:
The prostitution lobby wants us to believe that prostitution is female sexual liberation and a way for women to give full expression to their deepest sexual fantasies. These ideas are based on an uncritical acceptance of the old libertarian concept of individual free choice and completely lack a critique of society and an analysis of male power. What they also care to ignore is that the concept of free will requires the existence of several possible options to choose from and the control of the person in making a choice.
Instead of talking about prostitution as a choice, we must ask ourselves: If prostitution is a free choice, why is it that it is always the women and girls who have the fewest alternatives who are the ones who end up in prostitution? |
Again, both they and you miss the point that the sex in exchange for money needs to be consensual. If the man is exerting his "male power" (whatever the fuck that is) over the woman, it's not consensual.
I've said nothing about prostitution being a profession "desired" by all. The same could be said for the person working the counter at McDonalds, I bet that they would choose to be a famous rapper, or an NBA pro or really anything other than the guy who asks, "Would you like fries with that?". For some people, career choices are limited. Despite parents telling their kids "You can be anything you want when you grow up." it's just not true. Some people, either through their own hard work, luck, good genes or a combination, have more options than others. That has nothing to do with a person making a free choice among the options available to them.
Nor did I say that should it be legalized that there would be this huge influx of women acting out their previously oppressed fantasies by becoming prostitutes. In the wake of legalization, there might be such an influx, there also might be a scarcity of prostitutes.
Two consenting adults should have the choice to legally enter into such an agreement. Of course, implied in that is the choice NOT to enter into such an agreement. If coercion, or similar influence, is involved, the choice isn't freely made and therefore not really consensual.
Message edited by author 2011-05-25 02:38:04. |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 09:09:22 AM · #194 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
this perfectly illustrates the point- libertarian personal rights and consenting adult theories cannot be absolute; It does not mean we have to base the law on morality derived from religion, Judeo-Christian based or otherwise... we don't allow cannibalism even with consenting adults;
if you peel back the layers of so called "consenting adult activities" there can be a side that cannot be justified at times- the way pimps operate and get so called consenting female prostitutes to hook for drugs... or start them under aged... perhaps people see multiple wives as a similar problem- the people that seem into it most are "childhood" brides. |
Again...all of those examples involve other criminal activities that either invalidate consent (using drugs to create a dependence upon the pimp) or where it's not possible for consent to be given (underage prostitutes). |
my point is that "consent" is not absolute; have you heard of the concept "quit or be fired"? some people are put in that situation. It is not enough to say- "the person quit- they weren't fired" Its altogether naive to assume that consent is real consent- but I see your point- what is wrong with true consent- still the spread of disease and the result in a seedy part of town or the Internet that communities do not want to tolerate- its subjective- but there is no constituional right to prostitution, or a blowjob for that matter, the court made that clear in Bowers v. Hardwick, despite allowing consenting homosexual activity based upon "privacy" rights implicit in the constituion. |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 10:48:17 AM · #195 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
this perfectly illustrates the point- libertarian personal rights and consenting adult theories cannot be absolute; It does not mean we have to base the law on morality derived from religion, Judeo-Christian based or otherwise... we don't allow cannibalism even with consenting adults;
if you peel back the layers of so called "consenting adult activities" there can be a side that cannot be justified at times- the way pimps operate and get so called consenting female prostitutes to hook for drugs... or start them under aged... perhaps people see multiple wives as a similar problem- the people that seem into it most are "childhood" brides. |
Again...all of those examples involve other criminal activities that either invalidate consent (using drugs to create a dependence upon the pimp) or where it's not possible for consent to be given (underage prostitutes). |
my point is that "consent" is not absolute; have you heard of the concept "quit or be fired"? some people are put in that situation. It is not enough to say- "the person quit- they weren't fired" Its altogether naive to assume that consent is real consent- but I see your point- what is wrong with true consent- still the spread of disease and the result in a seedy part of town or the Internet that communities do not want to tolerate- its subjective- but there is no constituional right to prostitution, or a blowjob for that matter, the court made that clear in Bowers v. Hardwick, despite allowing consenting homosexual activity based upon "privacy" rights implicit in the constituion. |
As I mentioned in another post, people don't always have all options available to them. That's life. Giving consent doesn't necessarily indicate a desire to pursue that option. When I get a new job, I give to consent to a background check, credit check and a drug test. I don't really think that's needed and I don't like it, but I give my consent and I follow through with it willingly.
As for communities not wanting prostitution in their towns, that's just the NIMBY syndrome. People don't want power plants, landfills, industrial areas etc. That's why there are zoning ordinances. There's also nothing that says prostitutes need to operate out of a building, in a certain neighborhood or should solicit clients on the street. The way prostitution is carried out could be regulated without being prohibited.
The courts can be wrong too...it's happened, despite their clarity of opinion.
|
|
|
|
05/25/2011 11:08:48 AM · #196 |
Maybe it helps to explain that I can also imagine a possible scenario where a woman and a man congenially and consensually exchange sex for money and leave happy. I don't think, however, that this is compelling enough to either philosophically defend prostitution or legally endorse it. I think the hypothetical is so divorced from the reality of prostitution (legal or otherwise) as to be unhelpful.
My 7th grade teacher used to tell the parable of a kid who drops his ice cream cone in a cow pie. Is he then going to pick it up and continue to eat it based on the fact that "there's ice cream in there"? Of course not. The bad of a situation can easily outweigh any actual good.
I see prostitution like this, though I'm not even sure there actually is some ice cream under the cow pie. In any case I wouldn't encourage people to try to find out.
Message edited by author 2011-05-25 11:09:27. |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 11:32:09 AM · #197 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe it helps to explain that I can also imagine a possible scenario where a woman and a man congenially and consensually exchange sex for money and leave happy. I don't think, however, that this is compelling enough to either philosophically defend prostitution or legally endorse it. I think the hypothetical is so divorced from the reality of prostitution (legal or otherwise) as to be unhelpful.
My 7th grade teacher used to tell the parable of a kid who drops his ice cream cone in a cow pie. Is he then going to pick it up and continue to eat it based on the fact that "there's ice cream in there"? Of course not. The bad of a situation can easily outweigh any actual good.
I see prostitution like this, though I'm not even sure there actually is some ice cream under the cow pie. In any case I wouldn't encourage people to try to find out. |
Their mutual or individual happiness is irrelevant. As I've said before, a prostitute may not like or enjoy their profession, but they should be allowed it. A stripper, a porn star or the guy behind the counter at McD's may not enjoy their work either, but they have the right to do the work and to profit from it. The choices people have may not be choosing between good, better and best, but instead choosing between bad, worse and worst.
I have yet to see a good argument showing how two people consenting to exchange sex for money would cause a third party material harm, and infringe upon their rights. |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 12:00:18 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I have yet to see a good argument showing how two people consenting to exchange sex for money would cause a third party material harm, and infringe upon their rights. |
First, why do you think they have this "right"? Are you now talking in a legal/constitutional manner because clearly this is not the case. We (our legal system) are both comfortable with limiting personal freedom in cases like seatbelts, and the Supreme Court of the US has weighed in on prostitution in specific saying that the legislature had the right to prohibit it (US vs. Bitty). So what "right" is being infringed upon?
Philosophically, I don't care as much about the third party, though we could point to the wife of the john or the child of the prostitute. If one of the parties themselves is harmed and if the evidence shows that that party may not be capable or in the position to make a choice in their best self-interest, then that's good enough for me. |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 12:51:55 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
I have yet to see a good argument showing how two people consenting to exchange sex for money would cause a third party material harm, and infringe upon their rights. |
Would the fact that most john's are married men be considered a harm to you? The fact that they are breaking their vows and exposing their spouses to possible disease while taking money out of the family budget is a possible harm.
There are modes of prostitution that are more or less harmful, if you can strip out the pimps, the diseases, the drugs, the underage children in the trade, the streetwalkers, the piles of used condoms discarded on doorsteps, all the elements of the trade that make it so visible to the average church going folks, basically run it like it is run in the Netherlands or in certain counties in Nevada then the harm is lessened. But that takes a lot of government involvement, and some people hate that as much as prostitution. |
|
|
|
05/25/2011 12:54:19 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
There are modes of prostitution that are more or less harmful, if you can strip out the pimps, the diseases, the drugs, the underage children in the trade, the streetwalkers, the piles of used condoms discarded on doorsteps, all the elements of the trade that make it so visible to the average church going folks, basically run it like it is run in the Netherlands or in certain counties in Nevada then the harm is lessened. But that takes a lot of government involvement, and some people hate that as much as prostitution. |
Basically, it can be made safer if one takes away all the factors which are solely a consequence of its illegal status. |
|
