Hey Paulites

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
#61
Markets used to (still do on a much, much smaller scale) where you could get these people from across the ocean and BUY them. Yeah, and then they became your property and you could make the work in the fields for you, or clean your house. And you just had to house them, maybe a few rags for clothing and if you were really generous, you could feed them. What a great market that was!! :rolleyes: A market exists, it should most certainly be legal.
If you are refering to the illegal slave trade in Africa, and if you are being sarcastic, I agree. You should not infinge on another person's rights.

However, watch the show cathouse on HBO, and let me know how many of these girls with their own homes, cars, health insurance and 401k plans are being treated similar to slaves?
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
16,745
19,692
1,743
#62
Human Trafficking (i.e. kidnapping) is a problem, and it definitely infringes on a person's rights. However, If states and local municipalities handled the way things are handled in Nevada.

You would see the monetary incentive for such acts drop.
Montana restricts prostitution to counties with a population of less than 400,000 people and upon a vote of the people approving it. Given the size of Nevada's counties and the distribution of its population, that means prostitution is allowed only in fairly remote, population sparse locations. It stands to reason that many of the secondary negative affects are lessened by that fact.

I'm not wholly opposed to a policy decision that leads to legalization of prostitution. If someone truly weighs the costs and perceived benefits and comes to the conclusion that it should be legalized, then I may not agree with them in a particular situation, but I wouldn't say their position is without value. It's the notion that it's "cost free" that some seem to be promoting that I find untrue.

I'm personally less interested in what side of the debate people fall on as opposed to the process in which they get there. Just about every law has a moral judgment inherent in it. Just about every law restricts our choice and freedom in some manner or form. Where and how do we draw the line between what constitutes anarchy and draconian restriction is what interests me.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
16,745
19,692
1,743
#63
If you are refering to the illegal slave trade in Africa, and if you are being sarcastic, I agree. You should not infinge on another person's rights.

However, watch the show cathouse on HBO, and let me know how many of these girls with their own homes, cars, health insurance and 401k plans are being treated similar to slaves?
You might want to look into Dennis Hof's alleged conduct and treatment of his "contractors" a little deeper before painting the Bunny Ranch as a workers' paradise as you have.

Hof is involved in the production of that show, and of course it's going to paint the going-ons there in the best possible light.
 
Jan 15, 2008
33
0
0
#64
Markets used to (still do on a much, much smaller scale in foreign countries) where you could get these people from across the ocean and BUY them. Yeah, and then they became your property and you could make the work in the fields for you, or clean your house. And you just had to house them, maybe a few rags for clothing and if you were really generous, you could feed them. What a great market that was!! :rolleyes: A market exists, it should most certainly be legal.
Nice try, but no go.

Force and fraud. If I'm committing neither, I should be able to do what I want. Holding individual rights as society's highest paradigm and allowing free an unfettered markets are not mutually exclusive, in fact they go hand in hand.
 
Oct 1, 2007
3,333
0
166
38
Southwest KS
#65
Where and how do we draw the line between what constitutes anarchy and draconian restriction is what interests me.

I agree. Things like drugs, alcohol and sex are tough areas. If we made them all legal and taxed them I am not sure our economy would benefit like some presume. Would unemployment drop significantly? Doubt it. Do tax revenues increase significantly? Doubt it. When you find people addicted to these things and they view them as harmless is when you get into some big debates.
My View...
Should prostitution be legal? Legally, don't care. Morally, no. I'd never go to one and so it doesnt effect me either way. I dont want my views pushed on people though. If asked my opinion I will say its disgusting.
 
#66
You might want to look into Dennis Hof's alleged conduct and treatment of his "contractors" a little deeper before painting the Bunny Ranch as a workers' paradise as you have.

Hof is involved in the production of that show, and of course it's going to paint the going-ons there in the best possible light.
agreed, his perspective is what the viewer gets, but compare HBO specials of

Cathouse and "Life on the point" (??) They both show what prostitutes go through in a legal environment and a illegal environment.

I agree with what JD said (....sigh) Don't take them at face value, but you can definitely get a feel for what both groups of "contractors" (illegal and legal) go through.

And by no means is HBO scientific research!
 
Jul 21, 2006
1,400
0
666
Tyler, TX
#67
Nice try, but no go.

Force and fraud. If I'm committing neither, I should be able to do what I want. Holding individual rights as society's highest paradigm and allowing free an unfettered markets are not mutually exclusive, in fact they go hand in hand.
Evenflow, where do you get this "force and fraud"? I'm not familiar with it.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
16,745
19,692
1,743
#68
Nice try, but no go.

Force and fraud. If I'm committing neither, I should be able to do what I want. Holding individual rights as society's highest paradigm and allowing free an unfettered markets are not mutually exclusive, in fact they go hand in hand.
And are moral judgments that you are "forcing" on those that happen to disagree with that they are the "highest paradigm" just as much as those you complain about.
 
Oct 1, 2007
3,333
0
166
38
Southwest KS
#69
And are moral judgments that you are "forcing" on those that happen to disagree with that they are the "highest paradigm" just as much as those you complain about.
Does he know what paradigm means? Saying highest paradigm seems odd. Paradigms are usually bad and you have to be careful to avoid them. Being creatures of habit make it hard to assess this. I would however agree that as society we do have a paradigm when looking at prostitution. It really has no adverse side effects like drugs and alcohol but is seen as so morally corrupt its not allowed. To me I'd feel better about prostitution being legal rather than drugs and alcohol. But to me if they were all legal I'd have no problem with it. If you dont want it avoid it.
 
Jan 15, 2008
33
0
0
#70
Evenflow, where do you get this "force and fraud"? I'm not familiar with it.
Laws should exist to combat force or fraud. In other words, crimes would be those that involved force: assault, theft, murder, etc., and fraud would be embezzlement, breach of contract, etc. Prostitution would fit neither criteria, assuming there was no coercion on any one's part. Neither would drug use, or any number of things that the government concerns itself with today. I don't know where I got it, it's a pretty common sentiment among libertarians.

The next time you hear of a new gun law, transfat ban, or any new law to protect us from ourselves, ask yourself, "Who is being forced or conned into anything against their will? And why should the state concern itself with it?"

CowboyJD said:
And are moral judgments that you are "forcing" on those that happen to disagree with that they are the "highest paradigm" just as much as those you complain about.
I don't understand the question.

SUPERMAN said:
Does he know what paradigm means? Saying highest paradigm seems odd. Paradigms are usually bad and you have to be careful to avoid them.
paradigm

Main Entry:

3: a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly : a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind
This is the definition I was aiming for. (So it was on my word of the day calendar, bite me;) )

What I meant was, hold individual rights as our highest value, keep it as the framework from which we govern. A society that hold individual rights as their highest "paradigm" would never allow it's government to get so out of hand that it was regulating the harmless personal behavior of it's own citizens.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
16,745
19,692
1,743
#71
Does he know what paradigm means? Saying highest paradigm seems odd. Paradigms are usually bad and you have to be careful to avoid them. Being creatures of habit make it hard to assess this. I would however agree that as society we do have a paradigm when looking at prostitution. It really has no adverse side effects like drugs and alcohol but is seen as so morally corrupt its not allowed. To me I'd feel better about prostitution being legal rather than drugs and alcohol. But to me if they were all legal I'd have no problem with it. If you dont want it avoid it.
I assume he does. I have no problem with the way he used it. Paradigm: a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly : a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind. Basically, he was arguing free markets and personal freedom are the most important principle to be upheld in a functioning societal system.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
16,745
19,692
1,743
#72
What I meant was, hold individual rights as our highest value, keep it as the framework from which we govern. A society that hold individual rights as their highest "paradigm" would never allow it's government to get so out of hand that it was regulating the harmless personal behavior of it's own citizens.
And your assertion that holding "individual rights as our highest value" is as much a ethical/moral judgment assertion as Huckabee's "Amend the Constitution to comply with the Bible" paradigm. I would assume you would disagree with Huckabee's paradigm and it's implementation. Many would disagree and object to your particular preference of ultimate paradigm.

You make a very quick moral/ethical assumption that "individual rights" is the penultimate principle from which we govern or SHOULD govern. Many would disagree with you. Some would recite "social order and safety" some would cite "respect for the rule of law" others would cite other things.

Furthermore, I've proposed several notable ways in which prostitution is not as "harmless personal behavior" as you might think....certainly that reasonable minds could disagree on the exact amount of harm caused by it.
 
Jan 15, 2008
33
0
0
#73
And your assertion that holding "individual rights as our highest value" is as much a ethical/moral judgment assertion as Huckabee's "Amend the Constitution to comply with the Bible" paradigm. I would assume you would disagree with Huckabee's paradigm and it's implementation. Many would disagree and object to your particular preference of ultimate paradigm.

You make a very quick moral/ethical assumption that "individual rights" is the penultimate principle from which we govern or SHOULD govern. Many would disagree with you. Some would recite "social order and safety" some would cite "respect for the rule of law" others would cite other things.
You would be right, Huckabee's comment exemplifies why I loath him as a presidential candidate. If Huck's paradigm is enforced, then my harmless actions, as well as a host of other's individual actions (which I may or may not approve of) are subject to the regulation of Huck's religious paradigm.

If my paradigm is upheld, then Huck is powerless to force me to do or not do anything that he considers harmful to his vision of society. On the same token I am impotent when it comes to enforcing my value judgment on him. Say, my disapproval if raised his kids as creationists. At the end of the day, that's his call, and none of my business.

My paradigm insures the most freedom for all of society, and is not in conflict with rule of law, considering the only laws on the books are those involving force or fraud remember? I'm not talking about anarchy, I'm talking about getting the state reigned in, and focused on the real crimes on our society, not whether Fred wants to marry Ted. As for social order and safety, Prohibition Era America was neither ordered or safe, considering the thugs that the ban on alcohol empowered. Are moonshine bootleggers a big problem now? Is there big money in it? Are we not safer for lifting the ban?

Furthermore, I've proposed several notable ways in which prostitution is not as "harmless personal behavior" as you might think....certainly that reasonable minds could disagree on the exact amount of harm caused by it.
We can all disagree, and don't think that I approve of prostitution. I would just rather have brothels in the open light of day, ala stripclubs, than I would hidden in the shadows, where someone could really get hurt.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
16,745
19,692
1,743
#74
You would be right, Huckabee's comment exemplifies why I loath him as a presidential candidate. If Huck's paradigm is enforced, then my harmless actions, as well as a host of other's individual actions (which I may or may not approve of) are subject to the regulation of Huck's religious paradigm.

If my paradigm is upheld, then Huck is powerless to force me to do or not do anything that he considers harmful to his vision of society. On the same token I am impotent when it comes to enforcing my value judgment on him. Say, my disapproval if raised his kids as creationists. At the end of the day, that's his call, and none of my business.

My paradigm insures the most freedom for all of society, and is not in conflict with rule of law, considering the only laws on the books are those involving force or fraud remember? I'm not talking about anarchy, I'm talking about getting the state reigned in, and focused on the real crimes on our society, not whether Fred wants to marry Ted. As for social order and safety, Prohibition Era America was neither ordered or safe, considering the thugs that the ban on alcohol empowered. Are moonshine bootleggers a big problem now? Is there big money in it? Are we not safer for lifting the ban?
I'm merely pointing out that your choice of a paradigm (that you would impose on others) is just as much an imposition of YOUR values on others that may not agree with them as would be enactment of Huck's on you. Personal freedom is of paramount importance to you.....reasonable minds might disagree that the "most freedom" is the most important goal for a society.

I'm not convinced we are "safer" for lifting the ban if you include all the secondary and tertiary effects the increased use of alcohol that resulted from legalization has caused.

I'm suggesting that maybe your...and many libertarians....viewpoint of the "harm" is pretty shortsighted and limited.

What I am also suggesting is that people that may be willing to sacrifice more personal liberty for more protection and social order aren't just idiots that don't have any idea what they're talking about. I'm merely proposing that your preference for a form of government closer the Hobbesian "state of nature" doesn't make it an absolute, self evident truth that such a form of government is the best.

Feel free to quote me Ben Franklin now, and I'll point out he mentions "essential liberties" and "temporary safety".

We can all disagree, and don't think that I approve of prostitution. I would just rather have brothels in the open light of day, ala stripclubs, than I would hidden in the shadows, where someone could really get hurt.
And I'm suggesting that having them completely legal and "in the open light of day" really doesn't make them as safe and harmless as you seem to think it would.

My personal viewpoint and opinion on this issue is probably much closer to yours than it is Huckabee's. I'm just more interested in examining the process in reaching our conclusions and all the different viewpoints for merit.
 
Jan 15, 2008
33
0
0
#77
I'm merely pointing out that your choice of a paradigm (that you would impose on others) is just as much an imposition of YOUR values on others that may not agree with them as would be enactment of Huck's on you. Personal freedom is of paramount importance to you.....reasonable minds might disagree that the "most freedom" is the most important goal for a society.
If my paradigm is to let people live on their own lives, free of other's morality, how am I enforcing anything on someone who disagrees? They are free to hold their values and live as they see fit, but they are powerless to force others to live the same way. I'll be honest, if someone sees personal freedom as the antithesis to their vision of society, then I'm never going to see eye to eye with them.

I'm not convinced we are "safer" for lifting the ban if you include all the secondary and tertiary effects the increased use of alcohol that resulted from legalization has caused.
Effects based on the independent choices of free people. No one is forced to drink. Yet I would argue forcing drinkers to the black market held more dangers. Especially considering the increased presence of law enforcement in regards to the personal lives of Americans. Prohibition empowered the state as much as it did Al Capone.

I'm suggesting that maybe your...and many libertarians....viewpoint of the "harm" is pretty shortsighted and limited.

What I am also suggesting is that people that may be willing to sacrifice more personal liberty for more protection and social order aren't just idiots that don't have any idea what they're talking about. I'm merely proposing that your preference for a form of government closer the Hobbesian "state of nature" doesn't make it an absolute, self evident truth that such a form of government is the best.
A libertarian government would never promise the most stability, the most safety, or the most security. It would promise the most freedom, what we do with that freedom is up to us. Personally I don't believe that every city will transform into Sodom and Gomorrah, were the libertarian wand waved over night.
Feel free to quote me Ben Franklin now, and I'll point out he mentions "essential liberties" and "temporary safety".
Bah, we can skip that. Care to move on to a Godwin's Law violation?

And I'm suggesting that having them completely legal and "in the open light of day" really doesn't make them as safe and harmless as you seem to think it would.

My personal viewpoint and opinion on this issue is probably much closer to yours than it is Huckabee's. I'm just more interested in examining the process in reaching our conclusions and all the different viewpoints for merit.
Good discussion!
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
16,745
19,692
1,743
#78
If my paradigm is to let people live on their own lives, free of other's morality, how am I enforcing anything on someone who disagrees? They are free to hold their values and live as they see fit, but they are powerless to force others to live the same way. I'll be honest, if someone sees personal freedom as the antithesis to their vision of society, then I'm never going to see eye to eye with them.
Because you've enforced a paradigm that places your penultimate view above all others. You're enforcing a society with a different penultimate value than the one they might. BTW, personal freedom wouldn't have to be the "antithesis to their vision of society". It could be very important to them, just not the penultimate value and goal of the society.

Effects based on the independent choices of free people. No one is forced to drink. Yet I would argue forcing drinkers to the black market held more dangers. Especially considering the increased presence of law enforcement in regards to the personal lives of Americans. Prohibition empowered the state as much as it did Al Capone.
Which leads to the crux of the argument. Negative effects "based on the independent choices of free people" are more acceptable to you than negative effects resulting from other sources. Many may take a strict "cost/benefit" safety analysis and come out on a different side than you. You would argue forcing drinkers to the black market held more dangers. Reasonable minds could easily disagree with your assessment.

A libertarian government would never promise the most stability, the most safety, or the most security. It would promise the most freedom, what we do with that freedom is up to us. Personally I don't believe that every city will transform into Sodom and Gomorrah, were the libertarian wand waved over night.
Which is my point. Reasonable people could favor a society that promises more stability, the most safety, or the most security. I never suggested Sodom and Gomorrah would result. I've only suggested that the society that promises the "most freedom" in exchange for less stability, the most safety, or the most security isn't necessarily the self-evident, obvious choice for a best society. It's your preference, sure.

Bah, we can skip that. Care to move on to a Godwin's Law violation?
Nobody's mentioned Hitler or Nazis yet. Maybe because Kaje hasn't been involved. This has been a surprisingly calm and rational discussion. We've been able to explore some pretty nuanced questions in detail. I appreciate that.
Good discussion!
I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you!
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
61,996
45,733
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#79
If my paradigm is to let people live on their own lives, free of other's morality, how am I enforcing anything on someone who disagrees?
Besides the fact that living "free of other's morality" is impossible unless you are on a mountain in the Canadian Rockies, "free of other's morality" is your morality. If you force that on people who disagree then you have forced your morality on them.

Pretty simple, really.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
61,996
45,733
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#80
Many may take a strict "cost/benefit" safety analysis and come out on a different side than you. You would argue forcing drinkers to the black market held more dangers. Reasonable minds could easily disagree with your assessment.
Here's an example, compare the number of people killed each year by drunk drivers with the number killed by crack-smoking drivers. It isn't even close. There is little doubt that if alcohol were illegal and not so easily attainable the number of people killed by drunk drivers would be far fewer. There's little doubt that if crack were legal the number of people killed by crack-smoking drivers would go up.