Whats your opinion on the legality of Porn and Prostitution?

Back in the day, Libertarians would acknowledge that rights could be violated by force or by fraud; and no act of prostitution was ever consummated absent fraudulent conduct by both parties.

Children. You're welcome.

No, it's also the business of everyone who relates to either party on an intimate level thereafter, as no one comes away from such an encounter unsullied.

Don't kid yerself, nobody has pockets that deep.

Clearly your definition of the term is spiritually bankrupt.

 

So, what you are saying is that you don't know the difference between consent and non-consent, or you believe women have no agency and the answer to sex is always "no." You accuse me of being right-wing. I think you are practically totalitarian.

 

Right, sort of like repealing prohibition protected the mafia, or repealing slavery protected slave owners. You totalitarians promulgate the most ridiculous assertions.

 

Apparently, libertarians have evolved. Statists are still stuck in the dark ages where whatever they deem to be immoral must be punished.

 

Okay...though I find it hard to believe you, or anyone would be confused about this:

Hiring anyone for a job implies they know and agree to the requirements of employment, they usually even sign a contract stating this but at a minimum discuss and are informed what said job entails. If someone then requests or acts upon sexual activity or commentary beyond this they can be accused of sexual harassment because they are...well...harassing the employee sexually. Any sex worker is well informed of her position and expects sexual activity which means harassment is not in play.

 

You condemned moralizing while moralizing. I didn't say anything about women not having the right to say no.

I do not agree with you that my opposing sex and human trafficking is "practically totalitarian."

 

Again, my preface is if the duties stated include requiring sex, then the clerk, cashier or whatever also is a sex worker provided accepting the job is accepted voluntarily. Clearly, it also could be made a condition of the person accepting the employment as that is one of the pre-stated job duties.

Thus, it would legal for O'Reilly to tell a prospective staff member "I will hire you if you are willing to perform all job duties, which included having sex with me, otherwise if you are not willing to perform any job duties including sex I won't hire you." Thus, the person would be voluntarily accepting the job including as a sex worker.

 

Okay...then I agree, the boss is just uncle pervey and probably gets off on the whole concept. I suppose discussing a One Off instead of general reality makes your stance easier but O'Reily would be quickly fired.

 

Do any of you think if a person goes into business as a professional prostitute, that person is exempt from anti-discrimination laws, which in many states would prohibit refusing a customer based up the person's sex, gender, age, race or religion?

 

While I mention Bill O'Reilly, I am more thinking of some greasy old man who a C-store telling prospective employees "I'll hire you, but only if you have sex with me" OR some rich old guy telling that to prospective personal secretaries.

 

In fact, I documented that studies in countries, including Western countries, that have legalized prostitution there is more sex and human trafficking - and for obvious reasons. To bust a sex trafficking ring it is only necessary to prove the prostitution. If prostitution is legal, it has to be proven it was not voluntary. The presumption of guilty changes to a presumption of innocence for a sex trafficker.

If fact, repealing prohibition does make it harder to prosecute illegally running alcohol.

 

as long as it's among consenting adults it's no ones business but theirs what they do with their bodies...

but there is a need to come down hard on traffickers/pimps targeting, coercing, intimidating and brutalizing vulnerable women, that aspect of the business is nothing more than slavery...

 

Remember, the poll has NO qualifiers.

All the responses of regulating prostitution, policing prostitution to make it safe, brothels, taxing prostitution, registering prostitutes, STD/disease testing prostitutes, requiring condoms be used, setting age restrictions, local restrictions or anything else is NOT provided for in the poll. There also is no age restriction so Romeo-Juliet laws would allow a 16 year old to be a prostitute to 14 year olds and 16 year old drug addicts with STDs outside of high schools as street walkers would be legal. The poll, nor OP about it, provides for NO qualifiers or restrictions.

The poll is for unrestricted, no rules, no government involvement, legalizing all prostitution anywhere. In fact, there can be NO regulations per the poll because regulations would be set of laws - and the poll is for unqualified legalization. Anyone who answers yes to legalization, inherently then voted in opposition any regulations or restrictions on prostitution of any kind.

 

What law prevents a prostitute from doing business in a "safe" manner now? How would legalization protect her from violent predators? Nothing in your poll provides any protection whatsoever. In fact, if your daughter was forced into prostitution, the pimp sex-slaver could claim she was legally prostituting voluntarily - and therefore his cut would be legal. Now he could not because his operating a prostitution ring is illegal - whether the women are voluntary or not.

NOW, the mere fact he took some the money from prostitution he is running makes him a criminal and if from numerous women could be prosecuted under the more serious RICO statute as organized crime. Whether your daughter was voluntary or not is irrelevant to prosecuting him. Under your poll, it would just be your daughter's word against the sex-slaver pimp who may have her so drugged up and addicted she can not even speak rationally or dare say anything being she's now a hooked addict.

I cite studies showing legalizing prostitution increases sex-slave and human trafficking because it becomes extremely difficult to prosecute for the reasons I just gave.

Prostitutes are not exempt from paying taxes now, so that is nothing.

How does legalizing prostitution make it safe? Your poll allows NO qualifiers whatsoever, meaning NO rules, NO restrictions and NO regulations - rather pure legalization.

 

Nope....Women should ALWAYS have the right to refuse sex with a fat stinky ugly man but not just because he is an old black Muslim. If she choose the profession she will know what is required. Prostitutes already deal with ....shall we say....less than quality men.

 

Again I will comment that most are posting platitudes based on the Hollywood nice view of prostitution rather than in reality. The movie "Pretty Woman" is not reality and most prostitutes are NOT happy people but rather are most drug addicts with rather miserable lives.

THIS is the reality of what would effectively become "legal" under the poll of blanket legalization of prostitution:

An attractive young woman, likely poor, is forced into prostitution by being mercilessly beaten and gang raped day after day, while made addicted to heroin or other hard core addictive drug, for which she is conditioned to a sense of helplessness, abandons resistance, and is fully addicted. A year or two later, her broken, trashed, of no free-will left and only hoping to avoid violence and getting her next fix - there is a police raid. Regardless of whether than woman is voluntarily there or not is IRRELEVANT BECAUSE PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL. The pimp/sex trafficker is a criminal merely by virtue of the prostitution ring. That means the sex-slavery ring is shut down. That means she's taken out of there and is saved. It is NOT necessary she testify against the sex-slaver for the conviction.

However, if prostitution is legal, then it is possible she is voluntarily being a prostitute. First there was no reason for the raid in the first place - it wouldn't happen - and second it would depend upon her being able and willing to testify against the sex-slavery pimp - knowing that means no more heroin and she's just out on the street with nothing and likely being hunted by the sex-slavery pimp's people - likely to beat her to death or just OD her. It would have be proven beyond any reasonable doubt the woman was not voluntarily a prostitute - when she is a junky desperate for another fix from the sex-slaver and may well have no where to go or anyway to hide from the operators of the sex-slavery ring.

Legalizing prostitution increases sex-slavery human trafficking. That is what studies all prove. The above is one example of why.

Virtually NO prostitution or John is so much as ticketed unless it is openly on the street. Even then, it is a very minor charge. Maybe she'll spend the night in jail. At worse, he might get a ticket.

My way is VASTLY safer for prostitutes and everyone. Keep it a minor misdemeanor for the prostitutes. That means there are no arrests or ticket unless it is flaunted on the street and then its a night in jail if the hooker doesn't have the small bail. Make it a major felony for the pimps. THAT is what would make prostitution safer for everyone, including the prostitutes. Minor misdemeanors to keep it off the streets, while legally crushing pimps.

The messages at me calling me a moralizing religious zealot rightwinger are all 100% false. Rather, I am posting about REALITY, while others are posting slogans and platitudes. The only person I reading posting messages that actually would protect both prostitutes and their customers is me!

 

We have, In God We Trust on our legal tender.

That means being honest and using money, Must be moral.

 

I don't often get called on to defend the concept of government, I'm usually forced to oppose government as an oppressor of human rights, but I'll take up the challenge.

Government, in and of itself, is not an immoral concept but a necessary evil. In a state of nature where it's every man against every other man, or every clan against every other clan, none of the virtues of civil society can arise because war is a daily or weekly phenomenon. Things like agriculture and animal husbandry can barely be sustained because they require a larger territory to be defended than any one man or clan can defend. Things like art, architecture, and writing are simply impossibilities because every man must spend every waking moment gathering food or defending himself or the clan. Government is the natural consequence of clans banding together for mutual defense, agreeing to a restriction of their own "rights" while transferring the responsibility for defense to the government. Over time, this included the right to revenge against one's neighbor within the collective; the power to take revenge against the neighbor for wrongs committed was transferred to the state. This is the beginning of the police power. Claims against a neighbor for wrongs committed that didn't amount to a crime required the government to adjudicate the dispute. This is the beginning of the justice system. These are the natural and defensible purposes of government. Two areas of interest that are not natural purposes of government but end up becoming necessities for government to cover are infrastructure (roads and sewer systems especially) and public health. Both are the natural concomitants of a peaceful society; population grows until public ways and public sanitation become critical, and because no financial incentive can spur a private solution, the government has to step in and provide a public solution. Same with public health; population density, far greater than in a state of nature, means a health crisis can quickly become society-threatening, so the government has to step in and provide a solution. In both cases, government is a necessity, not an immoral concept.

I'll take up the defense of public morality later or tomorrow.

 

May have already been said:

Both should be legal, but not promoted as some lifestyle choice. It should be the things we know occurs yet not so out in the open/prevelant. Idk the word for it.

I also believe that no taxes at all should be taken from prostitutes. Something about a society failing to provide jobs for a woman only for them to profit off her when she sells her body seems incredibly immoral to me. Just my 2.

 

I do not see virtue in either. In fact, all I see is destruction. Would rather see people change their hearts and the culture become healthy again than to try and make it so by passing laws.

 

I agree that they are not virtuous. And I agree with you about people and culture need to change.

 

Both should be legal. Government shouldn't regulate morality.

 

You should stick with your normal stance because you have done a horrible job outside your comfort zone.

When you start your argument with logical fallacy, then you have no argument. Government is an immoral concept based on violence. It is not a necessary evil, just evil. Government, from the Latin verb gubernare: "to control", and the Latin noun mens: "mind". The etymological origin of the English suffix -ment is often debated, yet it is overwhelmingly clear that those who created the English language deliberately chose mens, the Latin word for "mind" to mean "the state of" or "the condition of", in direct keeping with the first principle of natural law, the Principle of Mentalism, which demonstrates that in order for any particular thing, event, circumstance, state, or condition to exist as it currently does in our manifested reality, it must first have existed in the mind.

Of the 242 years of the existence of this country, only 21 have been without wars. Government does no stand for justice, it is the antithesis of justice. One need to look at our justice system to see it is based on tyranny not justice. The rule of man, not of law. Please explain why it is justice when the victim is ignored but the government gets to collect fines and sentence slaves to work for pennies on the dollar in prison factories.

Infrastructure, that which the people paid for and those psychopaths have stolen for their favorite pork barrel projects. The infrastructure of this country is crumbling but there is no money to fix without stealing more. On top of this, they do nothing but skim substantial monies off the top while non-government contractors actually do the work. Much more would be done without the psychopaths from government being involved.

Government doesn't defend this country, it just makes more countries that want to attack us. This country has never been attacked except by our own government.

Sewer systems, one of the most destructive things man has ever done. Rob the land of nutrients that are not recycled to complete the natural cycle and inject the foul anaerobic resultant into our waterways and oceans.

So based on all the false assumptions, is it no doubt the conclusion would likewise be false.

 

LOL right now it more annoying then anything else and you can catch HIV with any partner paid in cash or not paid in cash.

 

Okay, now go back and answer the argument. Government exists because without government, there would be no civil society, period.

Now I'll answer your arguments.

A) What logical fallacy? You stated I started from one but then didn't name it.

B) "Government is an illogical concept based on violence" is an opinion, not an argument. Why is it illogical? It seems very logical to me because of the argument I gave. Why is it based on violence? Government exists because it is a response to violence, and the internal order brought by government is peaceful, not violent.

C) The etymology of the word has nothing to do with reality. Government exists to control the body, not the mind. Think whatever the hell you want, as long as you obey the rules with your body.

D) I'd like to see a better system of justice anywhere in the world. Working for pennies in a prison factory is better than doing nothing. They are in prison for their crimes. They are there by choice, whether they want to believe that or not.

E) You're right that infrastructure is inefficient and costly, but as I've already shown, there's no private alternative. Look into the history of private roadways during colonial days. They existed, but they were horrible.

F) Sewer systems are the greatest boon to human life and health ever devised. Rob the land? Are you kidding? Look up Africa sometime and read about the open sewers there, and the problems with insects and health issues caused by them. Read about the problems caused by the use of human feces as fertilizer in China. It's an argument worth considering whether Rome rose to power because it had closed sewers and no other culture of the time did. And it was what, 1300 years? before closed sewers returned after the fall of Rome.

G) What false assumptions? I assumed nothing, and explained everything. If this were a debate class, you'd get an F. Try again.