Looky here, pilgrim: you think I'm dumb enough to believe the Founders intended to establish the very same system they revolted to get away from? Actually I'm pretty sure it is. Non sequitur, obviously. Obviously not true, since that is not the point of contention. The subject is the source of unalienable rights. So it's your position that unalienable rights being inherent at birth results in unalienable rights being inherent at birth. Got that about right, haven't I? But the results are definitely not the same, which is the point you're evidently determined to miss. Yeah, well at this point I think it's pretty safe to assume there's nothing there that lends itself to understanding. Speaking of reading comprehension issues... No, you need to learn that because there are rights which are alienable, there is overlap between the two. Which, by your reasoning, is the only one that matters, since his right to murder was not contingent on anything. Pretty sure I don't need your permission to direct it towards those like yourself who, unwittingly or otherwise, lend support to such perceptions.
OK cool. Just a little fyi- sarcasm doesnt translate well in text based communication. So you don't support Theocratic style government, but you do support (correct me if I have missed more sarcasm) laws based on morality. Morality is not objective. What is 'right' vs what is 'wrong' vary from person to person. Where does the morality that we are to base our laws from originate? Who is the 'moral authority'?
Actually I'm done with this line of discussion. You have no clue what rights are, the source of those rights, their constitutional application and a whole lot more and I'm certainly not inclined to educate you. So for me this is an exercise in futility. And so your defense mechanism is to inject strawmen and insults into your responses. However it's quite obvious you do require education on the matter. I'll do you a favor and direct you to an expert. Take it or leave it as you wish. You can start at about 11:00 if you want to learn to understand the difference between rights and privileges. Or if you want a rudimentary education there are 7 videos that are about less than 1 hour each. You can find them all yourself. Good luck.
That wasn't the problem here. The problem was your insistence on jumping to unwarranted conclusions. You'll certainly get agreement on that from those who haven't a clue as to what morality is. That, of course, is a myth which springs from the affinity of mortals for sweet little lies which justify their immoral conduct. How in Hell does the author of this have the gall to ask me that question? And the reason is obvious, given that it's been like forever since I've witnessed such spectacular incompetence in a debater. More to the point, you haven't the wherewithal to do so. Hell, you haven't the wherewithal to educate grade schoolers on any of this. I double dog dare anyone to point to any strawmen created by yours truly. If in fact I did, the only way to get it done would be to kick my ass in a debate on the subject; and since you're not anywhere near up to it, you need to find ten like-minded people, each with twice your intelligence, and drag them all over here and sic'em on the y-man... ...and see if I don't mop up the floor with the lot of them just like I did with you.
In the state where I live prostitution is legal. Women can work in legal brothels, from home, from hotels or as escorts. Street walking is still illegal and so is pimping. Prostitutes register, pay taxes, get health checks etc. I live within a few hundred meters of two legal brothels, one on a major road. Nobody cares. Legal prostitution isn't a magic bullet. There are still some pimps and there are still girls being run by them - mostly girls brought in from overseas. Some of those women are trafficked, most choose the work for the money. There are still a handful of street workers. They tend to be girls with serious drug problems or otherwise unable to work normally. Police in those areas (really only one very small area in a city of 4 million) tend to leave them be. So, if you are one of those people who likes to argue that any failure to eliminate a problem = total failure then this has failed. What has changed since prostitution was illegal, however, is that the vast majority of girls now work for themselves. They can set up as sole operators or work in a brothel without a pimp. They can work from home or rent an apartment. They can escort themselves or with an agency. They can pool resources for security, hire it themselves or just not bother. Women who are beaten by clients (a bigger threat than pimps for many girls) can not only report them to the police, they can warn other girls without worrying about the police hassling them. If people are opposed to prostitution in principle then arguing about legalization is pointless - they will think it bad no matter what. If people want women who choose prostitution to be able to do so without having to deal with pimps or be marginalized by fear of the law then legalization done sensibly is a good idea. Let police get on with more pressing matters.
For a serious answer, the self-appointed "moral authority" is government. In a democratic form of government, the majority is the "moral authority". Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner. In a Constitutional Republic such as the one created by the founders, all individual rights are protected. They are protected from government especially and from others who would abrogate those individual rights. "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson and many of the founders were slave owners. But in their world they recognized slaves as a lower form of human beings who were on a par with pets. Everyone is born with inherent rights, these unfortunately include the right to harm others (kill, rape, steal, etc.). So in a civilized society we create an authority (government) that (ideally) functions to protect/defend against those who would abrogate our individual right to life and liberty. And government creates laws based on its perception of its constituent's moral standards. Unfortunately history shows governments always tend to corruption and its laws often reflect such corruption (see Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union). The US government is no different, many of its laws favor billionaires/special interest/corporations at the expense of the rest. The Constitution is supposed to prevent that but we see that it's treated like a g-d-a-m-n piece of paper by those in positions of authority. Unfortunately there is no practical provision in the Constitution to enforce it on government so we now have a rogue government that seems to be getting worse by the minute.
So laws are based on morality that comes from God, but our laws dont come from God, and thats not Theocracy. ...k...
You see how that works. Some authority figure proclaims that a mythical being that no one ever saw or spoke to wrote somewhere in an authoritative book (e.g. the Bible) that a person who claims to have spoken to such a mythical being claims that the mythical being told him/her that prostitution is immoral. And so because the authority figure is an authority figure who should not be questioned, the congregation asks their legislators (who may even be part of the congregation) to make prostitution illegal. "They must find it difficult ... those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." - Gerald Massey
Because of Sodom and Gomorrah... we don't want to repeat their mistakes. Rationally there is no reasons.
I would say in general the reason why prostitution is illegal is this: it can't really be taxed. You can tax a buisiness but what about the craigslist adds etc. it's illegal because it's an act that can be done anywhere at any time at any price and the gov can't get its fingers into the Koo laid.
But doesnt that apply to almost all transactions? It may not be feasible to trade a house off the back of a truck for cash on a backwoods dirt road... but most things in the same price range as sex can easily be traded without being taxed, yet the govt doesnt ban the vast majority of them. Theres gotta be more to it than that.
You've got that the wrong way around - it can't be taxed because it is illegal. It is the illegal part that doesn't get taxed. Prostitutes working legally in my home state pay tax like the rest of us. They declare an income and get taxed on it. Anyone else working illegally has to explain their income to the Taxation Department somehow. If someone working legally fails to declare income they risk being caught & fined. That is the same for many other businesses - people can work for cash and hide their income if they are prepared to take the risk.
Maybe it's bad for the public roads to be 'dangerous' at night? And Public Roads are Governed by State and City and County; not an Autonomy?
None of them are, at least when it comes to consenting adults. It should be legal. The reason it's not is because we've allowed undue religious influence over our civil laws.
