Captain's Quarters -

"Why should society criminalize a transaction between two consenting adults for an action that is in itself not illegal?"

Simple: there is NO legitimate reason why.

And that, I think, is the main difference between libertarians and conservatives. Libertarians believe that the law should be changed to conform to libertarian ideology unless a good reason can be found not to.

Conservatives believe that a long-established law should be changed only if a good reason can be found to change it.

Why should prostitution be illegal? From a conservative perspective, the question must be, "Why shouldn't it?"

The libertarians may be right in saying that prostitution should be legalized, but it is their responsibility to say why. (Young takes a bit of a stab at it, but a blog post is simply too short to make the case.)

And if they want to have any chance of convincing Tory curmudgeons such as me, they won't be able to rely on abstract and ideological arguments about liberty; traditionally, laws against prostitution have been seen as perfectly compatible with ordered liberty. They'll need to convince me that ending anti-prostitution laws will benefit society.

I read your article and I think the point you make - of saying that prostitution reduces the woman to less than a person - has a serious weak side.
Who decides what action is the responsibility of the woman (or man)? Society?
Are we so certain that what is good for one person is good for another in every situation?
I'm a political conservative, but I strongly believe that a person has the right to control their own body.
The Natural Rights reflect upon what rights a person has before a society (and government) are formed.

Is it in society's best interest to allow a Natural Right to be limited in this light? Does it harm _society_ for this interaction to be allowed?

I think not. I believe it is a personal choice.
It appears that there are certain areas of personal choice that social conservatives think they should be allowed to use society's laws to tell others how they should treat their own body. I don't think this is in anyone's best interest.

Tackling the question of prostitution on the grounds of the perceived immorality of turning a woman's body into a commodity is laudable... but that's exactly what we do to runway and magazine models. They aren't participating in sexual activity, but their bodies are their commodity... at least for the few years they are marketable. If you prevent legal prostitution on those grounds, you must be consistent and stop modeling as a career as well. Laws based on a communities moral compass must be applied consistently, or they are not in fact moral at all.

The grounds for keeping prostitution illegal are as simple as they are historical: Trial and error. We have, at various times throughout history allowed and even encouraged prostitution. We have found that, in the main, it becomes (among other undesirable effects) a venue for slavery. If the issue were only between the purchaser and the provider there would be no problem; but there is the pimp, the slave owner, who must be considered.

If you legalize prostitution you legalize pimping. Pimps make money only so long as the women sell their bodies. To encourage more sales, the women are forced to work... usually brutally.

To prevent this, some extol the virtue of making the STATE act as pimp. Tax the enterprise... administer it, regulate it, provide/enforce medical care, etc. in the name of protecting both the provider and the purchaser. But then, in order to make sure everybody is following the Law, the State must...

... make other prostitution illegal.

Yeah... you sure have solved the problem.

So, for the libertarians: Do you wish to allow virtual and actual slavery? Do you want the State to take over the trade? Do you somehow think that only High Minded people will run the process, and cleave to some moral code to not abuse the sex providers?

Do you go outside much?

The simple reason is, because the US Constitution allows The People to outlaw prostitution, and The People, through their Representatives, have decided use their legal prerogative to make it against the law.

Against the law because for the time being, it offends the "conscience of the community" for people to treat sex like a thoroughbred-horse breeder treats sex. Same as the horse, only cheaper.

ScottM : Conservatives believe that a long-established law should be changed only if a good reason can be found to change it.

Well ... maybe some conservatives.

As it happens, there is a good reason: criminalization makes a stressful profession more stressful and more dangerous.

The Pivot Legal Society (of Vancouver, where Robert Pickton is now on trial for the murder of 26 prostitutes (of more than sixty murdered during the time these offenses occured) has published a report on the effects of Canadian Law, which is nowhere near as punitive as most American laws.

A Canadian Parliamentary committee studied the issue. There were some indications that the Liberal majority government - as it was at the time the committee was struck - was sympathetic to the idea of changing some aspects of the prostitution laws, but elections intervened. Nobody's going to change the law unless (a) it is early in the term of a majority government, or (b) a Cabinet Minister's daughter gets killed.

So the report was insipid, enlivened only by the unbelievable remark in "The Conservative Party's Perspective":

They believe that the most realistic, compassionate and responsible approach to dealing with prostitution begins by viewing most prostitutes as victims.

That's right, Art! You consider them victims, so you want to toss 'em in jail! Good thinking!

As for ScottM - why are you so eager to toss women (some of whom, the messed up streetwalkers, are drug-addicts; some of whom have good reason (like supporting their families) to need a lot of money they can't get any other way) in jail? Jail costs money. Are you really accomplishing anything by it? What?

As for the Cap'n ... it's very kind of you to take it upon yourself to determine the acceptable level of commoditization of human beings (and to spend my money enforcing the doctrine). I wish to know whether my profession of investment counsellor is permitted under the rules. Can you please send me the forms, so I can fill them out and - if I'm lucky - get your approval for my choices? If not, are you willing to raise the welfare rates to the point where I can bring up a family in a respectable middle class manner on the proceeds?

BOTTOM LINE: Threats to marriage.

I'd bet that was the major reason that we don't solve the dilemma of unwanted pregnancies; the way the Greeks did. By allowing men to love little boys. While it risked nothing. If they had the money. They had the connections. And, society let them climb up the ladder.

At some point eh Greeks "dumped" the women. That's what Medea and Antigone are all about. Women too emotional. Leading to destruction. Not political compromise.

But while whores trespass everywhere; and throughout time. "Legal" isn't really the question. The Police MUCH PREFER easier arrests, to the threatening and more difficult kind.

Putting prostitutes in jail? Even religion worked hand and glove with this. As the "bad girls," provided babies for adoption. And, the "do-gooders" with ways to "correct the morals of the sinners."

Today's environment weakened the structure.

And, while I'm for TAXING WHORES for the work that earns them money; you'd have the women, themselves, fighting this system.

And, it is a job that gets no respect. Not the only one, either. There are jobs that fall into the category of "disgusting." And, that's why we do have, at least some laws, keeping the neighborhoods free of being aware that there's a whore house on the block.

Once, an old rabbi said, about the Biblical rules; they are there JUST WHERE PEOPLE HAVE TROUBLES STAYING ON THE RIGHT PATH.

So if you look at the Ten Commandments; a list broken in two. Between do's and don'ts. It tells you that people are uncivilized without rules. And, laws. And, there's a place where it's not about "individual rights." But about what's best for the GROUP.

So, it sounds like in today's world "what's wrong with prostitution?" But alcohol abuse and prostitution have had deliterious effects on enough marriages, through time; that it's seen as EVIL.

Evil to the fabric of mankind. While to the woman? As one of my favorite authors, Philip0 Wylie, once wrote. A woman who marries for money, is nothing but a whore with only one client. While a woman who transacts sex as a business, has many clients. And, while more honest, is prone to the diseases of her profession.

There's no way to glorify it.

Someone who takes money from you, and in return gives you pleasure, is NOT AT ALL A PARTICIPANT IN A LOVING ARRANGEMENT. You're willing to go for the fantasy. That's all.

And, since when you can you ever lift the veil on fanstasies and make them real?

Now Libertarians think the biggest issue is legalizing prostitution? Who sez? Cause they ain't speaking fer me.

Mr. Michael : If you legalize prostitution you legalize pimping.

Wrong. Extortion is an entirely different part of Criminal Law.

This entire line of discussion is naive. What about sex trafficking, white slavery, and child prostitution, in which women and children are kidnapped and forced into prostitution by gangsters? That's a far more common economic model than the consensual transaction this hypothetical assumes.

Care to justify child prostitution, my libertarian friends?

As for threats to marriage, perhaps someone can explain why this should be a criminal as opposed to a civil matter? It would seem the risk of being sued for divorce would be enough.

If prostitution were legal, there would be financial records available to subpoena. It would be a lot harder to do without leaving a paper trail. Heck, the prostitutes would probably install security cameras.

As for legalizing pimping, the only reason pimps survive now is that women need protection and are forced into an underground environment. With legalized prostitution, she doesn't belong to a pimp, she hires a marketing agent.

I see absolutely no reason the government would have to jump into this at all. The free market would very quickly set up efficient and safe transactions, much like it has everywhere else prostitution has been legalized.

As for legalizing pimping, the only reason pimps survive now is that women need protection and are forced into an underground environment. With legalized prostitution, she doesn't belong to a pimp, she hires a marketing agent.

I see absolutely no reason the government would have to jump into this at all. The free market would very quickly set up efficient and safe transactions, much like it has everywhere else prostitution has been legalized.

quickjustice, I just told ya. There's no "central" Libertarian "person" we all get to check in with. No Stalin. Nothing of the sort!

And, there's NO JUSTIFICATION for the behaviors that lead men to prostitutes; except in the rare cases where the guy's got no hands. In which case, I'd make a singular exception. Since there's MEDICALLY INDICATED NEEDS for relief.

Though my mom used to tell me that men would get wet-dreams. It's not as if nature, herself, doesn't "provide."

What's probably more true than not, though? Where it's ILLEGAL, you better believe there's a whole slew of politicians, judges, and cops, who are on the gravy train, getting paid off.

Just shows ya. You can have the laws in place. And, you're still dealing with human behaviors.

Leads to the suppliers of the ugly stuff.

Separate from the fantasies that whores have hearts of gold. And, they'd give it to ya "fer free." Except they gotta eat.

Sure seems like servicing "the clientele" leads to enormous profits. Or why would people even do it?

And, is Viagra supplied?

Of course, there's a joke I know. A married man started asking religious guides, if it was okay to have sex with his wife, on the Sabbath. The opinion of the priest was "no." The Opinion of the minister was "no." But, finally the guy asked a rabbi. And, the rabbi said, "why of course you can have sex with your wife on the Sabbath! Otherwise my wife would tell me "she'd have to let the maid do it."

Happy marriages really do have healthier attitudes towards sex. And, that's what gives hope to couples. Not something for the man to solve, alone. Or worse, with a prostitute. And, today? We do have laws that let couples opt for birth control. And, Viagra!

You didn't know a prostitute's customer base was made up of married men? Well, now you know!

quickjustice : What about sex trafficking

Extortion. Unrelated to prostitution laws.

white slavery

Extortion / Slavery. Unrelated to prostitution laws

child prostitution

Most people are aware that a child cannot be deemed to enter into a valid contract.. This situation is made illegal by many child protection laws under many statutes; also, of course, extortion & unlawful confinement, all of which are unaffected by changes in prostitution laws.

women and children are kidnapped and forced into prostitution by gangsters?

Kidnapping & extortion. Unaffected by changes in prostitution laws.

Sex trafficking, white slavery, and child prostitution: not a single transaction between mutually consenting adults in the list, so all up for criminalization in the libertarian model.

Next?

I don't know if you consider me a conservative, but I've long been on record as saying that prostitution should be legal, as long as it's regulated approximately the way it is in Nevada. In essence, brothels are licensed; pimps are not. Government inspectors make sure the girls are safe (and legal) and everyone gets a blood test regularly to check for disease. Condom use is mandatory.

Freedom, the government should stay out of relations between consenting adults. (Marriage is not a relation, it's a privilege/benefit extended to those that would rear the next generation of citizens)

I support freedom, even when I find it distasteful.

Victimless crimes. (Drug war, vice war, porn war) are a waste of time and distract from the real war.

It exploits humans for no purpose other than meaningless gratification; it turns people, and usually women, into nothing more than a commodity like pork bellies or cattle futures.

Their body, their life, their choice.

There is something essentially missing from a society that protects that transaction in law: the idea of humans as sacred, and not just in a religious sense.

It can be said that one "flaw" of libertarian philosophy is that it gives people too much credit. I don't think anyone could ever convince me prostitution was a good career decision for anyone (even if it were just a month to pay for college) but the burden is on government to show they know better than the individual. "We think your life is too sacred to allow you to do this" doesn't quite succeed.

Human societies have almost always structured themselves on the notion of the exceptional status of humans

Take a moment to consider Japan's history. I don't consider them a role model for treatment of women, male-female relationships, etc, but prostitution didn't destroy their society and geshias held elevated status.

If we don’t structure our society to protect the essential value of human beings, then what do we value?

I'm for protecting the unborn and children, but when it comes to an adult, what we should value is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, however misguided.

Everyone becomes a commodity in some form or another

Yep. We are all paid for the services we can provide.

If we have no value above the commodity level, then only the strongest have a reason to survive, and we have no reason to protect the weak and the defenseless.

That some people cannot see above commodity level doesn't mean everyone will fail to see this. Consider societies with slavery.

Protecting people from themselves is not limited to criminalizing behavior.

The whole idea of legalizing prostitution rests upon the fallacy of thinking that you can separate the ‘person’ from the ‘body’. You cannot separate them. Failing to honor the body also fails to honor the person; making the body into a commodity makes the person into a commodity. This is not an issue of civil liberty; it is an issue of personhood. If you think you can separate the person from the body, then it follows that you should be able to achieve the same satisfaction from an animal. If body is not person, then what matters the body? It would matter not a whit whether you engaged in prostitution or in bestiality. That is what legalizing prostitution means.

But is it not up to the prostitute to control her/his own body? If s/he wishes to engage in sex for money, who are we to say s/he cannot? We are a society, that’s who we are. The whole idea of Libertarianism depends heavily upon society, not upon unfettered hedonism. Libertarianism absolutely demands that society take on the responsibilities of good order, while relegating government to the proper function of governance. To insist upon a right to dispose of one’s assets as one sees fit, and justifying it by making the case that no one else is harmed, is not Libertarian – it is libertine. It does not demonstrate the reliance upon society the Libertarianism demands, it is a way of telling society to “get out of my way”. Society is most assuredly harmed when this is presented as something of value.

"It exploits humans for no purpose other than meaningless gratification;" -from your article

- Well I suppose you would have to define meaningless - What in this world has meaning? To have meaning presupposes we know what we are here for -

What is rather well documented is the physiological need for sex and companionship. If prostitution allows for someone who cannot have that without a prostitute to actually have that, then there is indeed a meaning - and moreover, one of the most meaningful things we actually realize in life -

Quoth the Captain:

"I am loathe to insinuate myself into a private relationship between consenting adults. However, this is not a relationship in any sense but the literal and existential. The “relationship” between prostitute and trick is essentially exploitive on both parts, and has no other benefit to themselves or society except sexual gratification and cash flow."

Applying the same logic, we might as well throw in prison all wealthy lechers and their gold digging spouses. After all, why shouldn't an elderly millionaire who weds himself a trophy wife find himself behind bars just as readily as the john who propositions a hooker on Pico Boulevard? What really separates the Anna Nicoles of the world from the streetwalkers? Answer: the Anna Nicoles hold out for more dough.

"It exploits humans for no purpose other than meaningless gratification; it turns people, and usually women, into nothing more than a commodity like pork bellies or cattle futures.

There is something essentially missing from a society that protects that transaction in law: the idea of humans as sacred, and not just in a religious sense. Human societies have almost always structured themselves on the notion of the exceptional status of humans; Western civilization has built itself on the concept of the individual human as the center of existence."

So, Ed, should we outlaw pro wrestling? Jerry Springer? How about boxing? No, really, how does watching two guys pound each other's face in (for no other reason that the gratification of paying spectators) elevate the notion of the sacred?

Pay to watch two guys beat each ugly: sacred and legal.

Guy too ugly to get a date paying someone for companionship: immoral and illegal.

"The prostitute is valued for her vagina and possibly her breasts, and the rest comes as a package deal that some customers barely notice."

The swimsuit model is valued for her breasts and other physical attributes. The rest comes as a package deal that customers barely notice.

The recording artist is valued for his or her singing voice and possibly looks. The rest comes as a package deal that customers barely notice. ("Shut up and sing" I think somebody said.)

The guy who mows your lawn is valued for his arms and legs. The rest comes as a package deal that customers barely notice.

"However, I believe it to be wrong to treat human beings as commodities, even with their permission, and do not think it to be a wise idea to enshrine commodification into law. Once we lose sight of what makes humans exceptional, then we have to question even the notion of society and community."

So when we catch prostitutes soliciting, let's show them how much we value them as human beings by throwing them in jail... along with the rapists and murderers and other assorted felons. Then if the prisons have free cable, they can watch WWF and Jerry Springer.

i need gov'nt to only protect my right to be...nothing else..if i want to fuck somebody i want to my gov'nt to stay away. it's free after all

carol.....very good writing...as usual
please keep mi coming back))))

I agree totally with the Captain on this issue.

And here is the LIE - "consentual activity between two consenting adults" that is "not hurting anyone else".

THAT is a lie. That act may be very private - but it never happens in a vacuum. And fighting the argument inside the predicate of a lie - inside that parameter, without confronting the lie itself - always looks foolish.

Once American society outgrew the small hometowns where everyone has known eachother for generations, the folks in the big cities have gotten so dispassionate about the connections of a community to the vital interests of their own lives, it seems most of them do not think of themselves at all in terms of integral relationships with their communities.

Thomas Jefferson spoke of a man's fiduciary obligations to his community - and that point being where his own personal rights ENDS.

There was a time when you didn't have to explain to anyone the value of a man's word in his business and social dealings, or the value of knowing a set of families for many generations, when it came time for a family to decide on spouses for their children, from among those in the communities they have known all their lives.

Nobody thought twice about what happened if a home or business caught fire - the town was there to help put it out, and was instantly bringing things of their own to the family, to help replace much of what they had just lost.
New families, newlyweds, or victims of tragedy knew the community would come together for a house or barn raising to get them started, and they knew just as well, that in other times, they would be the ones showing up with helping hands.

Even in WW2, nobody talked about the large cities the way they do now, that they are cold and indifferent, and do not see their own actions as "being nobody else's business" even if they know - or rather, openly acknowledge - what they are doing is damaging, either to themselves, their own families, or their comnmunities.

But when a community is so disconnected that they pretend they don't see the damage to the community, they've so lost touch with integral relationships within their community that they turn a blind eye to the damage of individual behavior, and can only think of it in terms of personal RIGHTS and "SELF-DETERMINATION" - not realizing the very community they are tearing down with their own hands is the same community they depend on for VITAL needs in their own lives, that have to do with health, with access to healthy food, with safe shelter, protection, a chance to work at a trade and become financially independent....

What those who want to legalize everything that they personally want to do and not be interferred with, for gratifying themselves as they see fit - who refuse to materially and fairly and JUSTLY assess the damage to the community, and the burden they put on others for their activities - they are essentially advocating an anarchy in which most community members cannot survive or sustain themselves, and live healthy productive lives.
And these anarchists do not care.

It sounds nice to say, no one should have the right to tell you what to do with your life.

But the fact is that anyone who does not care what burden they put on their community with their destructive activities doesn't really have a right to be a member of that community.

And I notice those who don't want anyone to tell them what to do are not hooking up with eachother and forming new "hippie-style communes" out, isolated away from all us busybodies - and our tax and spend "entitlement" programs, hospitals, "right to work" programs, unions, and anti-discrimination laws - where they can live freely without worrying aobut being discriminated against or looked down on by Conservative, bedrock, hard-working folks who expect everyone else to do their own fair share, and pull their own wieght.
No, they deride us continually - but they never pick up and move away from us and our tax bases.

The day will come, nobody can save them from it, when the fruit of their anarchy is they will be confronted with youth who are far more cold-blooded about other human beings than these anarchists ever thought about being - and they won't like being confronted with what they have created.

Humans create communities for one reason alone - to protect and to nurture their posterity.

Whenever they gather together for other reasons, they don't form healthy communities, they don't form communities in which a posterity CAN THRIVE.

Anarchy and posterity don't mix.

We've already seen that the Democrat districts which are more lawless, are also averaging 8,000 LESS CHILDREN per district than the Conservative districts.

We all see that many Americans now think that society hasn't a right to impose on THEIR right to live as if they are perpetual college students on Spring Break at the beach.

Frankly, I wouldn't care if they do live that way - as long as they take it somewhere else and don't dump the BURDEN of their DESTRUCTIONS on the community for the CONSTRUCTIVE folks to have to clean up if THEY intend to keep on leading healthy constructive lives.

Let them take it to their own island and show us what a great society they can build, WITHOUT US OR OUR TAX DOLLARS in the mix.

Anything less is hypocritical to the max.

They don't do it because everyone knows about all those Black Holes around the planet.

These guys what to turn our communities into Black Holes, but they don't want to really have to live that way - they want US to clean it all up and make everything neat and tidy - like the Alcoholic, and his wife who will clean up the smashed furniture and broken glass in the night while he sleeps it off, so everything looks all neat and tidy when he wakes up the next morning - and all is right with the world.

Live that way if they want to - just keep your trash to yourselves. ALL of it. And don't ask for MY tax dollars to fix your broken stuff.

Thank You Rose.

If this is all about the sacredness of intimacy and the specialness of a woman's inner parts, what's so bad about buying a sensual massage?

Rose: If this is about anarchy, why are you in favor of maintaining the current black market system, when we could shrink the black market dramatically by legalizing prostitution in brothels that meet state standards?

If this is about tax dollars, don't you think a well-regulated, regularly-inspected prostitution scheme would more than pay for itself in tax revenues? That doesn't even count the money saved by not needing to arrest/harass the whores who would become legal.

If this is about keeping trash private, why would you want to make a public case out of it? A brothel that is not discrete is not going to get much business (whether it's legal or not). You can count on the sex industry to keep the goings-on relatively hushed up.

Carol: no one is trying to pass a law that says sex with a prostitute is just as good, productive, beneficial to society, psychologically and physically healthy as marital sex.

Your points may be true, but so what even if they are? So what if prostitute sex isn't as good as Carol-approved sex? That's not enough reason to make it a crime.

Cheeseburgers aren't as healthy as salads but that doesn't mean the government should outlaw them. Burger King isn't selling a fantasy of health food. Even if BK was falsely claiming that cheeseburgers are health food, the proper response would not be to outlaw all cheeseburgers.

Shipmates,

Many of those opposed to legalized prostitution have lamented the negative aspects of prostitution: (pimping, slavery, robbery rape and other crimes “related” to prostitution).

Those for legalizing prostitution have implied that many of those negative aspects only apply because prostitution is illegal. If prostitution were legal, many if not all, the negatives would not apply since people could ply their trade legally…in the sunshine instead of the shadows.

How many of you guys have actually been to a COUNTRY where prostitution was “legal”? Or at least legal for all intents / purposes and “regulated” by the Government? I have. Four different (yet similar in this respect) Countries. One of the “benefits” of being a swabbie, I guess.

I did extensive (though not “scientific”) research on this very topic. Kinda “hands on” if you know what I mean…In each of the “country cases”, the Government employed the “pimps”…the government supported the “slavery”. The “by-products” (crime etc) were even more prevalent in areas of “legal” prostitution…more prevalent than they are in areas of “illegal” prostitution in the U.S. Making the practice “legal” doesn’t decrease the “negatives”. But would it increase any of the negatives? What signal would we be sending to the youngsters out there about marriage / family and such…? Of course those in favor of legalizing it are much smarter than everyone else, so they’d have no problem fixing all the problems with it.

Trust me, shipmates…you don’t want to go down that road. No matter how “good it sounds”.

If humans need sex and companionship why then do they charge/pay money to have sex and companionship? If in fact these things are so necessary why then isn't is a crime to charge for something so vital to human need. What I don't understand is that in a time of revolutionized sex people actually pay to have it.

The only reason prostitution came about was because poor uneducated females needed a way to eat. Now that females have been empowered why does she charge for sex to make a living or conversely, if charging for sex makes lots more money than getting an education why would females bother to get an education.

That said, people generaly don't wear condoms as indicated in the high rate of STDs in 16-25 age range. One possible reason for why it decreases in older age ranges is that sex becomes less of a sport as one matures into adulthood.

Isn't it infantile to say 'government stay out of our bedrooms but give us free health care, free housing, free food, free art, free education, cheap oil, an AIDS cure, a stem cell cure-all, stop global child-sex slavery and while you're at it feed the world's hungry.

Personally, I think people who pay/charge for sex are sexually disfunctional.

SwabJockey05

Although I retired from the Army, like you I served in the Navy. I would like to add a few points from the prespective of long time association with at least one country similar to to the four you mention. First over time, prostitution becomes increacingly frowned on and eventually illegal due to public pressure.

In my observation, prostitution does not become illegal due to the government deciding to make it illegal. Prostitution becomes illegal because the public demands that it become illegal.

So if my observations are correct, then Libertarians on this issue are undemocratically seeking to force society to their model rather than to the model that society, in general wishes to take. In short the Libertarians wish a dictatorship enforcing their minority views.

Two reactions to the comments:

First, virtually all prostitution in the real world involves a "power hierarchy" of some sort, whether it's a pimp, madam, or similar figure or organization. The "consent" of the "sex worker" is an issue in that context.

And second, I'll share the insight of a psychiatrist friend of mine: "Men don't pay women for sex. They pay them to go away after sex."

The tragic chain of events leading to a woman becoming a prostitute is definitely something to consider when talking about legalization. It is more than just simple choice in our society.
Most prostitutes and porn stars were sexually abused at an early age. Many became runaways and the abuse continued Quite a few became a mere commodity to their pimp, generally some icon of human depravity.
The temptation of drugs and alcohol is ever present among this group, as the stigma of destroying their feminity is something many prostitutes would rather forget, regardless of cost.
Trading in human lives is something I do not think conservatives can accept. Women are not cattle. Abusers should not profit from their actions, they should be prosecuted. If America were to take this route we would not be better for it, it would diminish us.

The laws against prostitution are a violation of our most basic right: the right to be the owner of our own bodies. Provided you are not initiating the use of physical force, what an individual does with his or her body is no one's business but THEIRS.

The only thing you have a right to demand of other people is that they leave you alone, that they respect your rights by not initiating the use of force or fraud against you. You have the right to demand that they not rob you, not assault you, not destroy your property, not defraud you in a business deal, not break a contractual agreement, etc. -- and you have the right to demand that government use force to stop anyone who does these things.

But you do not have the right to demand that other people live according to your views of morality. It doesn't matter what the act of prostitution does to them -- an individual’s life and their body belong to them, not to you and not to the government.

'an individual's life and their body belong to them, not to you and not to the government'

That may be true up to the point where cash is transacted then that body belongs to the one who has purchased the body for the period of time negotiated; this is why it is called prostitution and why when cash is transacted sex is no longer consensual.

Prostituion is contractual not consensual sex, the comodity is the body not the person.

syn and Michael Smith

You don't understand. Prostitution is absolutely legal in the United States, except where the residents legally and democratically chose to make it illegal. Agreed that is all of the United States except for a few specific places in Nevada.

Now you wish dictatorial powers to force most of the American population to live in a society that they don't want to live in and accept laws that they have democratically enacted? What about our right to enact the local laws that we wish?

Now you are completely free to use the democratic process to change change the laws that you disagree with. I suggest that you study the history of the Probation and the WCTU.

I just love all these folks who insist we're trying to "force our morality on them"....just like in the abortion debate, they insist that they have absolute authority to determine for themselves what is best for their bodies (forgetting completely that, scientifically, the embryo is a living human being, and so is the whore....she just has more cells)....they care not for the effects on the rest of society as a result of them forcing their immorality on us.

Linhmy

Where at any point did I make the argument that I "'wish dictatorial powers to force most of the American population to live in a society that they don't want to live
in and accept laws that they have democratically enacted"

I argued what is prostitution not the morality or legallity of prostituiton.

The one thing that prostituiton is not is consensual sex; If it were consensual then no money would be transacted.

jiHymas@himivest.com said, weirdly, "As for ScottM - why are you so eager to toss women (some of whom, the messed up streetwalkers, are drug-addicts; some of whom have good reason (like supporting their families) to need a lot of money they can't get any other way) in jail?"

If you'll go back and read my post without the ideological blinders on, you'll see that I never argued (eagerly or reluctantly) that prostitution should be illegal, let alone that the penalty should involve jail time. Indeed, I went out of my way to say that the libertarians might be right. My points were that it is the libertarians' case to make, and that if they wish to convince me (and others like me, if there are any left), they will have to make the case on pragmatic, rather than ideological, grounds.

But never mind what I said; since I don't buy into your ideology, I'm The Enemy. Attack! Attack! Attack!

It's easier than thinking.

It's criminalized in order to drive the price up, making the marriage contract more competitive. If prostitution were legal, the price of sex would drop, and the sexual pressure that drives men to marry would be, ahem, relieved.

This is merely another evocation of the Libertarian Fallacy--individuals have no debt to society.

Since one's life energy is available to you only through your extended sustenance by society during decades of growth and rearing, there is an obligation on the part of every individual to pay into the equity account of society in such measure as their abilities enable.

The fact that the best way for a society to be organized to allow individuals to fulfill their obligations is one based on liberty is mistaken by L's to grant them license to self indulge with no accountability

"Now you wish dictatorial powers to force most of the American population to live in a society that they don't want to live in and accept laws that they have democratically enacted? What about our right to enact the local laws that we wish?"

So I'm guessing you'd have no problem with a few of the southern states deciding to bring back some of their older laws concerning civil rights? And you're also ok with certain northern cities that have decided that no matter what the 2nd Amendment says, they're going to ban guns? After all, in both cases the sensibilities of the local communities have been deeply offended.

The problem with forcing morality through legislation is that you have no philosophical basis for the line you draw other than personal aesthetics. If conservatives have no problem with regulation on behavior in the bedroom, then why such a problem with regulation in the boardroom?

Why is it ok for the government to decide "for the common good" to regulate prostitution, but not to force a landowner to sell their property to a real estate developer that will use the land to generate more taxes for the common good? The only threat of force in any of these transactions comes from the government.

The argument that "when cash is transacted sex is no longer consensual" is just like the liberals that talk about "Wage Slavery." The fact that cash is transacted _proves_ that it is consensual. As others have pointed out, we rent our bodies all the time -- it's called a job. Heck, I do IP work, so I rent my mind. Is there anything more invasive or degrading than to claim ownership of another's thoughts? If you can't negotiate the price for your labor (the use of your body and mind), that's when you've become a slave.

As for the comparison to the abortion debate, that post points out the flaw in its own argument. There's a second party whose rights are being violated, so there's no legitimate comparison. And I don't think I've ever seen a case of Libertarians proposing that people be forced to visit prostitutes, so I'm not sure how it could be a case of forcing immorality on anyone.

Once you go beyond allowing the government only to protect the rights of the individual, you end up with Ted Kennedy. If you accept that keeping the person sacred is a legitimate function of government, then why not free health care for all? In fact, let's make health care, eating right, and exercise mandatory. The government knows how we should live our lives, don't they? The only difference between Conservatives and Liberals (by the definitions offered here) are where they want to start building the nanny state from.

SwabJockey05: How many of you guys have actually been to a COUNTRY where prostitution was “legal”? Or at least legal for all intents / purposes and “regulated” by the Government? I have. Four different (yet similar in this respect) Countries. One of the “benefits” of being a swabbie, I guess.

Only four? Geez, I had no idea you Navy guys led such sheltered lives.

I've lived in Canada almost all my life. Pimping is a criminal offense, bawdy-house (both found-in & keeping) is a criminal offense, public solicitation is a criminal offense. Prostitution, in and of itself, is not a criminal offense. If a call-girl visits a private residence or hotel room, nothing illegal has occurred ... although, mind you, if she pays somebody to answer her phone, the message taker can be charged; so can her cab driver.

Let's see ... I've been to the Dominican Republic (Prostitution & bawdy houses entirely legal), Holland & Germany (not sure of the exact status, but basically legal) & Russia (no idea what the law says, but in the '90's when I was there it didn't matter a whole lot one way or the other!). So that's five. I win.

If prostitution were legal, many if not all, the negatives would not apply since people could ply their trade legally…in the sunshine instead of the shadows.

To a very limited extent. Perhaps the most amusing aspect of this debate is the implicit assumption that the law matters.

There are ferocious laws in the States that specifically target prostitution and no shortage of heroic cops willing to arrest desperate women (you don't see them go after the pimps much. Hell, pimps have guns!). What are these laws accomplishing, really?

They're certainly not eliminating prostitution. You don't need to spend much time on the Internet to figure that out, even if you don't know which street corners to look for in your home-town. They're probably reducing it somewhat, but what's the cost?

Not just the cost in terms of cops, lawyers, judges, prisons, guards & parole officers - the cost to the women that the prohibitionists claim to be concerned about.

Not just in terms of fines paid - which usually just means a few extra shifts. Cost in terms of having a criminal record. One constant theme in the Pivot Legal report I linked to above was that having a criminal record makes it even more difficult than otherwise to leave the business. Try getting a job as a bonded office or house cleaner, for instance, with a criminal record. Try it!

Also costs in terms of danger. There's lots of loony-tunes out there - Robert Pickton hasn't been convicted, but somebody sure as hell did awful things in Vancouver. The Green River Strangler was another. You can rhyme off any number of names of psychotics who have gone after prostitutes - because they're vulnerable. After all, if they pay somebody to record a license plate number or an address, and to call them in an hour to make sure everything's all right ... that person, in the eyes of the law, is a pimp. If they want to share an apartment with another girl and take calls inside in a safe place ... bawdy house.

So anyway, I just want to ask: What do the prohibitionists really think they're accomplishing with all this decisive talk about dignity, backed up with the entire force of the criminal justice system. Do you really think society has a choice between "Prostitution" and "No Prostitution", and that you're casting your ballot for the latter?

That's dreamland.

ScottM: If you support - particularly for such an intellectually lazy reason as 'that's what we've always done' - current laws, then you support jail time for prostitution offenses in America.

"Since one's life energy is available to you only through your extended sustenance by society during decades of growth and rearing, there is an obligation on the part of every individual to pay into the equity account of society in such measure as their abilities enable."

I love it.

From each, according to his abilities, and to each, according to his needs.

Where have I heard this before?

"Since one's life energy is available to you only through your extended sustenance by society during decades of growth and rearing, there is an obligation on the part of every individual to pay into the equity account of society in such measure as their abilities enable."

I love it.

From each, according to his abilities, and to each, according to his needs.

Where have I heard this before?

Boondoggle should read all of a post before brain jerking--a liberty-based society is the best one for paying back one's debt to society, based on a moral sense of obligation, not a compelled service to the state.

Boondoggie said: "So I'm guessing you'd have no problem with a few of the southern states deciding to bring back some of their older laws concerning civil rights? And you're also ok with certain northern cities that have decided that no matter what the 2nd Amendment says, they're going to ban guns? After all, in both cases the sensibilities of the local communities have been deeply offended."

At least in your first example, those laws would violate the Constitution of the United States. If you accept the incorporation doctrine (and whether we do or not, it's going to remain in force for the foreseeable future) and don't illogically exclude the Second Amendment, then the gun laws do as well.

Pass a prostitution-protection amendment, and you'll have a good analogy, there. Until then, the people still have the power to govern themselves vis-a-vis prostitution, even when you hate the way they choose to do so.

"The problem with forcing morality through legislation is that you have no philosophical basis for the line you draw other than personal aesthetics."

But no one person draws that line. The people as a whole draw it through their elected representatives. Unless, of course, the courts jump in and dictate where it is to be drawn, which I hope is not what you're suggesting.

Each generation must decide for itself where the line is to be drawn, and that "line" will be jagged and fluid, because life (unlike ideology) does not lend itself to neat, straight, stable lines.

We will never reach that ideological Nirvana where all the lines are drawn in permanent ink and it is no longer necessary to govern. And you should thank God for it. In our time, that Nirvana would be far more likely to be socialist than libertarian.

"Once you go beyond allowing the government only to protect the rights of the individual, you end up with Ted Kennedy. If you accept that keeping the person sacred is a legitimate function of government, then why not free health care for all? In fact, let's make health care, eating right, and exercise mandatory. The government knows how we should live our lives, don't they? The only difference between Conservatives and Liberals (by the definitions offered here) are where they want to start building the nanny state from."

Nonsense. None of this follows from outlawing prostitution. Thre is not the slightest logical inconsistency between favoring laws against prostitution and opposing laws against McDonald's.

If what you mean is that the people are free to pass laws like that under our constitutional system of government, why yes. Yes, they are. That's what self-government means. (Yes, the Constitution forbids any such laws at the federal level, and I applaud the effort to revive the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.) So get out there and fight against those laws, including the laws against prostitution. You're part of the people, and you have every right to fight for the policies you favor. But you do not have a right to win that fight.

I understand that having to support or oppose policies on an individual basis--and then having to do it again the next time they come up, and over and over again until some sort of consensus is reached--is much more difficult and time-consuming that simply trying to impose libertarian principles all at once. Well, tough. Until the Great Libertarian Revolution comes, that's the system you have to deal with.

Sorry Hymass, before you collect the chips you’d best make sure we’re counting from a similar point of ref.

I didn't list the four countries I was counting...I also didn't count my "survey" in Vlad, Russia because I wasn't sure about their laws. Last time I was there, didn’t have time to visit the law libraries. Nor the churches. But I did conduct work on my non-scientific survey. Remember, I’m not talking about what you can get away with...I also didn't count DR since I think you’re wrong about that Country. I think it’s illegal there as well.

My only point was that where it’s "legal" the place is usually a shithole.

Therefore, I don't think you "beat" me. If we're talking about the number of countries...or the number of "surveys" … much to my shame, you’re probably not in the same league.

The rest of your points are interesting, though.

Most of the people who get fired up about legalizing are fired up because they "have a dog in the fight". Since I don't visit prostitutes, and neither my sister, my mother...nor my wife are prostitutes, I don't have a dog in the fight.

My only $.02 is that the four Countries I’ve been to that legalized Prostitution were all four shitholes. Anecdotal maybe…but still a data point.

syn said:

That may be true up to the point where cash is transacted then that body belongs to the one who has purchased the body for the period of time negotiated; this is why it is called prostitution and why when cash is transacted sex is no longer consensual.

Nonsense. When I accept my employer's money in exchange for my labor, my labor does not cease to be consensual. I am not, at that point, his slave.

Lyn_my said:

What about our right to enact the local laws that we wish?

There is no such thing as the right of some to create laws that violate the rights of others. There is no such thing as the right to live in a “type of society” that adheres only to your moral code.

Would you consider it proper if all the skinny people got together, discovered that they were in the majority in a given area, and then voted in a law demanding that all the fat people go on a diet or leave the area?

Steve Cotton said:

Since one's life energy is available to you only through your extended sustenance by society during decades of growth and rearing, there is an obligation on the part of every individual to pay into the equity account of society in such measure as their abilities enable.

Nonsense. The only people that provided my sustenance during childhood were my parents -- and providing that was a moral obligation on their part since they, and they alone, made the decision to bring me in to the world. If I owe anyone anything, it is only to them.

To the rest of mankind, my only obligation is to respect the rights of others by not initiating force or fraud against them.

Michael:

See John Donne.

"I understand that having to support or oppose policies on an individual basis--and then having to do it again the next time they come up, and over and over again until some sort of consensus is reached--is much more difficult and time-consuming that simply trying to impose libertarian principles all at once. Well, tough. Until the Great Libertarian Revolution comes, that's the system you have to deal with."

We're having different discussions. I'm talking about philosophy and you're talking policy. I did a long post on this in my blog if anyone is interested.

Are we admitting that we want a Nanny State to tell us what we can do with ourselves?

Posted by: Michael Smith at May 9, 2007 11:14 AM

"There is no such thing as the right of some to create laws that violate the rights of others. There is no such thing as the right to live in a “type of society” that adheres only to your moral code."

News Flash!! Every law violates someone's rights. To take your argument further, do you believe that cannibalism should be legal as long murder is not employed to produce the meat? I mean if the guy doesn't have any relatives and just drops dead, why not butcher and sell the meat from the dead body? No one is harmed.

News Flash, we do have rights as a society to legislate against practices like Cannibalism. We have the right to legislate against prostitution. We also had the right to legislate against booze.

You do not have the right to dictatorially impose your views on the rest of us. You do have the right to either move to a place where Prostitution is legal or to work with in the system to change your local laws so that they allow prostitution where you live.

Personal view on prostitution. I have spent a lot of time in Asia. I am also retired military. I personally feel that there must be a better way of handling the issue than criminalization. I don't know what that solution is, I just think that there must be a better solution. I also believe the same thing about drugs. Still the issue MUST be worked out democratically. Ultimately the people MUST make the decision, not some would be dictator who thinks he knows what is best for everyone else.

''News Flash, we do have rights as a society to legislate against practices like Cannibalism. We have the right to legislate against prostitution. We also had the right to legislate against booze.''

News Flash. Those ain't rights. Gorvernment doesn't have rights. Those are powers; powers that the people (the ones with rights) give to government.

Words mean things.

The cannibalism example you give needs a tweak: If I contracted with someone that I had their permission to eat them after they died, then I don't see where the initiation of force is that allows us to make laws against it.

Pretty disgusting, but then so are Buffalo Sabres Fans, yet it wouldn't be right to make laws that allowed us to shoot them, either.

The laws against booze are a clear initiation of force. If two competent parties want to transact to produce/consume alcohol, that's their business. The only correct laws are those against public drunkenness, but frankly those are civil matters between the drunks and the property owners they're trespassing against. What right does anyone have to tell me I can't buy a beer on Sunday to drink in my own house and pass out on my couch instead of going to church?

If you're willing to initiate force against others for your own pet morality issues, then you can't complain when others do the same to you.

CheckSum

" "News Flash. Those ain't rights. Gorvernment doesn't have rights. Those are powers; powers that the people (the ones with rights) give to government."

You make an interesting and good point. Where I disagree is in your implied assumption that rights and powers are exclusive of each other. I contend that while rights and powers are separate and distinct, a society or an individual may have either, neither or both.

I could have, perhaps more correctly phrased my argument as, "We do as a society have both the power and the right to..." As I was responding to an issue of rights, I feel that I had no reason or obligation to add the separate, and in American society, also existing issue of power.

As to whether or not a Government has rights, when I signed my enlistment contract, the government was granted more rights over my life than I had. Admittedly in a democratic society, the rights and power of government represent the democratically expressed will of the people and are revokable by the democratically expressed will of the people.

After reading the above arguments, I can't help but think something is missing.
It is as if everyone is dancing around a concept, but unable to accurately name or discribe it.
The arguments seem proximate, not touching on the core of the issue, but attempting to convince based on surounding factors.

That said, I don't think I can help describe the missing peice, either.

Count to 10 is dead on

Boondoggie said

"If you're willing to initiate force against others for your own pet morality issues, then you can't complain when others do the same to you."

That is the issue. I grant that a civil society, after following democratic procedures to determine the will of the people, needs at times to initiate force against others for morality issues that offend the society. What I object to is sanctimonious despots imposing their morality on me with out going through the democratic process and the rule of law.

As long as a democratic process and the rule of law are used, I have the same options as anyone else. If I don't like the outcome, I can move or I can work with in the democratic system to change the rules. I am not excepting myself from following the same rules that I believe others should follow. I am not trying to be some "Tin God" remaking the world and the people in it to match my wishes.

The WTCU decided that drinking was evil. They followed the rules and passed a Constitutional Amendment outlawing the sale of alcoholic beverages. Eventually the American public decided that this was a bad idea and another Amendment was passed repealing the Amendment outlawing the sale of booze. That is how a democratic system works.

Prostitution like slavery is becoming less accepted in civilized society most places that I've been in the world. Like slavery, something about prostitution seems more appropriate to a more primitive and less civilized time. Like the man said, "I don't have a dog in this race." I am also not convinced that criminalization is the best solution to the issue of prostitution. But until and unless a solution is found that society can democratically decide, criminalization is the solution that is in existence most places.

Thank You Rose.

Posted by: Hutch

*******************

Ye'r Mighty welcome, Hutch.

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at May 9, 2007 04:02 AM

********************

No, again you are framing this falsely - legalizing prostitution won't reduce the Black Market - it will INCREASE the ANTI-SOCIAL FORCES in the community - it will make a magnet of it that draws larger numbers of blacker forces to bear against the community which hosts it.

This is like saying, we'll tell the Gangrene it can have full reign in this leg, and thinking you can maintain a healthy body, with Gangrene in one leg.

You are fully demonstrating that very dispassionate coldness to the destructions of egregious behavior towards the community at large, that I described in my first post.

And any grown man who thinks he has a right to leave a trail of trash and debris, and brokenness in his swath, for the rest of his community to pick up and clean up behind him IS NOT FIT TO BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY.

Few people can truly be so ignorant as to never have had a conversation with someone who is the adult child of a prostitute or of a man who is careless in his endeavors, towards family and neighbors, such as an alcoholic, drug addict, who frequents "dens of iniquity".
His home is a wreck, his neighbors have to be extra careful, of their own belongings, and of their children. The Law gets called to his domicile more often, the school is more troubled by his children, and the services of the community are more often required, because he is THERE - just being his normal old stinky self.

Well, the fact is, our Founding Fathers felt that the community has the right to decide if such a person has the right to reside within that community, or not - because of the burden they place on the others, who have enough to do to care for themselves and those deserving of their consideration, without having to be besett by those who are cold and brutal to others.

And when you partake carelessly of the services of the community, to clean up the debris you refuse to acknowledge you even tossed, that is a brutalizing of your community.

You who feel that Prostitution and other vices should be legalized should take upon yourselves to go downtown and study the cost of those vices on the part of the community which neither agrees with the vice, nor with the accepting of the burden - but who nonetheless become the sole burden bearers of the mess of it.

I have no compassion whatsoever of those who put such burdens on others, as dismissively as if the community is doing themselves a favor to grant you your vices at our expenses - or rather, as if YOU are doing us a favor by allowing us to clean up your messes.

Those old "busybodies" who filled a stage with strumpets and ran them out of town were always painted with harsh condemnation in those modern westerns - but those ladies were putting their communities, and their own families, FIRST.

And that is what a Community should do!

Those who don't put the community interests first should go form their own community of like-minded fellows and absorb the full brunt of their own perversions AT THEIR OWN EXPENSES.

All our Founding Fathers said that EACH MAN HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO ENCOURAGE HIGHER VIRTUE IN THE COMMUNITY, if they want the democracy to thrive, and to not collapse in debauchery into anarchy, leading to dictatorship - and nobody ever raised the issue of anyone having DESTRUCTIVE RIGHTS.

Those of you so preoccupied with your own lascivious interests HAVE NOT YET BUILT A BETTER NATION than our Founding Fathers. When you do, then come back and talk to us about your "rights" to change the laws because of your "feelings".

They only spoke of ABUSED RIGHTS becoming the pathway to LICENCIOUSNESS - and they made those comments as if Licenciousness IS A BAD THING, WHICH IT IS.

All of you here know that America has reached the point where over half the adults are single and not married, where more than half the marriages end in divorce , and most of the children are raised in poverty, and the schools are utterly deplorable.
This is the first generation NOT DOING BETTER THAN THEIR PARENTS in AMERICAN HISTORY - and you most of you sit here on a Conservative website discussing your "rights" to LEGALIZED Prostitution!

Our Founding Fathers would have kicked your buns out of their communities and run you out on a rail after they tarred and feathered you, and run you clean out of their territories.

No wonder the Al Qaeda types think they'll have an easy time of it taking you all down.

Posted by: Linh_My

Brilliant!

It is the core issue that they wish to circumvent the Constitutional Process for changing the laws to suit themselves.

Prostitution like slavery is becoming less accepted in civilized society most places that I've been in the world. Like slavery, something about prostitution seems more appropriate to a more primitive and less civilized time. Like the man said, "I don't have a dog in this race." I am also not convinced that criminalization is the best solution to the issue of prostitution. But until and unless a solution is found that society can democratically decide, criminalization is the solution that is in existence most places.

Posted by: Linh_My at May 9, 2007 07:17 PM

******************************

We used to have a better solution - for 200 years of this nation AFTER we were formed as a nation, and a lot of years before that, when we were a British colony, there were Bibles in every classroom, prayers and hymn singing as part of every school curriculum, and a plaque of The Ten Commandments, and the Golden Rule on every classroom wall.

At that time, a few people around the churches and the county courthouse could take care of all the needs of problems in the community out of their petty cash boxes - by and large, in most towns.

Even only 30 yrs ago, one of the last hold-outs against the Liberal way of doing things, if occassionally, a man lost his job, they didn't need an employment agency or welfare checks for him, they let him sweep out the courthouse until someone local found a good job for him, again. A week or two of hard times, when neighbors brought casseroles, or a sack of groceries to him and his family.
Liberals found out they "weren't following the mandated procedures" and stepped in with lawsuits to provide - the county had to hire a council to oversee the changes that cost more to budget for one month than the town had ever been out for any three years worth of need. Then they had to open several agencies to do each of the jobs created for the agencies by each person being out of work - soon the town had a boom in unemployed new residents.
And the Liberals were fully satisfied their services were required, after all.

We were better off with the Bibles in the Schools - that is the ugly elephant in the middle of the room nobody wants to discuss.

At least then, they KNEW certain things were wrong.

The problems now as then - they don't know how to put it to words, WHY certain things are wrong.

They know what wrenches their guts until they finally scar their conscience, but they cannot tell you WHY it is wrong.

They know that Prostitution violates everything required for a family to exist and thrive, and destroys the capability of men and women to have healthy marital relationships, to have a thriving family and to nurture healthy children who are able to get out and fly on their own wings, when the time comes, from a solid foundation.

But they don't see the connection anymore, between that and having themselves a safe neighborhood to live in, or a steady job, and healthy financial independence, or having the community resources that families have to have, the schools, and hospitals, and churches, and opportunities for their futures.

But you don't see these guys moving to Black Holes, do you.

Oh, they might visit there every now and again, but they don't move to THOSE neighborhoods. OH, NO!

How many of those who want legalized prostitution can tell us what a COVENANT is?

Would you consider it proper if all the skinny people got together, discovered that they were in the majority in a given area, and then voted in a law demanding that all the fat people go on a diet or leave the area?

Posted by: Michael Smith

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

IF the Skinny people pass their law Constitutionally, what is your gripe? As Linh My said, you have the right to leave and assemble a group of like-minded folks and go somewhere else and vote as YOU please, among yourselves.

The Community has a right to decide what burdens they will bear, and which burdens they choose to refuse to bear.

And any member of the community has an obligation to RESPECT that.

Thomas Jefferson:

The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people's voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority. This is not a perfect way of controlling government, but the alternatives--decisions made by a minority, or by one person--are even worse and are the source of great evil. To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction.

***
"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

***
"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790. ME 3:60

***
"And where else will [Hume,] this degenerate son of science, this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?" --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:44

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337

"Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:321

"[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Citizens of Adams County, Pa., 1808. ME 12:18

"It is my principle that the will of the majority should prevail. If they approve the proposed constitution in all its parts, I shall concur in it cheerfully, in hopes that they will amend it whenever they shall find it works wrong. This reliance cannot deceive us, as long as we remain virtuous." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. (Forrest version) ME 6:392

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:

"Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to Garret Vanmeter, 1781. ME 4:417, Papers 5:566

Linh_My, I respectfully disagree. This may just be semantics, but it’s a pet peeve of mine. I cringe when I see posts like on this thread that refer to ''rights'' of government/society/community.

Individuals have rights (unalienable, God-given, etc.) that can not be taken away (although they may be infringed). Individuals can also have powers that can be taken away.

Government does not have rights. Some dictators (and dems) may claim they have God given rights to govern, but I don’t think so. Government has powers. Powers the people give it.

The main partsof the US Constitution only talks about powers. It doesn’t mention rights until the amendments and that is always in regards to rights of people. It does mention the Representatives’ ''right of choice'' in selecting the pres and veep in hung elections, but that is as close as it gets to saying government has rights.

"IF the Skinny people pass their law Constitutionally, what is your gripe? As Linh My said, you have the right to leave and assemble a group of like-minded folks and go somewhere else and vote as YOU please, among yourselves.

The Community has a right to decide what burdens they will bear, and which burdens they choose to refuse to bear."

------------------------

So whatever the majority votes to do, that's ok, as long as they follow the rules?

And by ok, I mean just, true, and correct.

Would you also agree that "the truth" is relative to the times? That different groups of people decide their own truth and whatever they come up with as true for their time is what we should consider just, true, and correct?

Ponder that for a bit and then I'll point out that slavery and women's suffrage were voted on by the majority through the constitutional process. In fact, many democracies have given way to police states.

As for "you can always leave", the right of someone to tell me what I can and can't do, as long as I don't initiate force, ends at their property line. Substitute "white", "black" ,or "jewish" for "skinny" in your example and see where you end up.

Conservatives that are willing to allow the government to initiate force are no different from liberals and other statists. They just disagree about what types of morality they should use the government to enforce.

I think Rose's last 4 posts hit the nail on the head. If I may be so bold as to attempt a summary of it:

The majority has left behind the Bible which shows us how to live. They also have abandoned the common sense and simple virtues the Founding Fathers passed down to us. Lastly, they have rejected the republican principles and government which men like Thomas Jefferson championed. Therein lies the reason for many folks supporting the legalization of prostitution. If we would have a real solution to the problem, we must reverse those three "rejections."

Is that accurate, Rose?