Why not legalize prostitution?

I can think of plenty of reasons not to legalize prostitution that doesn't involve morality. I'm a fiscal conservative.

1. Prices would go up.

States would be given a monopoly on the sex trade. No different then the monopoly a lot of states have on tobacco and alcohol. This would not increase competition, nor would it lower the cost. The exact opposite would occur.

Anything considered a "vice" in the United States would inevitably be taxed more. Whenever taxes need to be raised, alcohol and tobacco are usually the first ones to get hit. Even in blue states. I'm not even gonna touch regulation. I'm way too bias.

Of course, this is all just relative to what men are paying whores today. Gold digging whores hold out for a wedding ring, an SUV, and a home in the suburbs. Classy whores usually require a meal and/or a movie. Low-bred whores only needing a drink or two.

2. It would empower modern feminism.

Legalizing prostitution would cause all sorts of cries of "legalized" rape and "exploitation" from feminists. Nevermind the fact that prostitutes would be "exploiting" lonely men of money. Feminists could attract more support for their ideology where they wouldn't be able to find it before. Namely from social conservatives.

Modern day feminism has not changed anything for the better for anyone. Unfortunately it has caused gender suspicion and hatred mutually. Kinda like how Marxism causes mutual class suspicion and hatred. Legalizing prostitution would only increase the tensions between the sexes.

If only I had a whore for everytime I've heard a modern feminism accuse all men of being -potential- rapists. It would've made pre-law courses involving crime, particularly rape crime bearable.

3. Making sex a legalized commodity is a mistake.

All sorts of unintended consequences would result. Just watch me or some other dickwad slap down as many patents and copyrights as they can once sex becomes a legally recognized commodity.

Think about what companies like Monsanto have done for agriculture.

No, just keep it illegal. Everybody already knows that laws only matter if you get caught anyhow.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Besides - the hoes don't hurt anyone. Sure, they may indirectly ruin a marriage or break up a family - but that wasn't their choice. It's the customer's choice to pay money for sexual trade.

This is a reason for women to want to keep prostitution illegal. If sex is the only thing a woman has to offer in a marriage then it is in her best interests to monopolize sex as much as possible.

Originally Posted by DarkMageOzzie

however, the idea that this would reduce the number of rape crimes, I'm not so sure about that.

I agree, but not for the same reasons.

Last time I checked the rate at which the FBI received false accusations of rape was only around 40%. There's so much more room for expansion. Especially with an increase of paranoia by feminists.

How ya doing, buddy?

A regulated market is not necessarily going to be any safer. Look at all the toxic shit the US imported from China. It wasn't until recently that regulators and safety inspectors in the US 'caught on'.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Tax the fuck out of it, I say. You want it? You pay for it. How is this a bad thing.

That depends.

It would encourage more street walkers. Employees will want a bigger cut that not being certified by the government would bring. It's not a problem in European countries because they're welfare states and they don't have hard ons for taxing vice. Any more then any other good or service. I see it being a problem in the 'States. No Republican would go out against support for increasing taxes on vice....... at least not publicly. -_^

If you were to run a brothel, with all the vice taxes and government mandated safety programs for your employees it will be expensive for everyone involved. Not to mention the normal payroll/income taxes on top of it. Making it a lot less lucrative then if it was illegal... or legalized but not regulated.

I don't see any benefit socially in vice taxes in this case either, because the government would spent all of it (or more) on regulation and enforcement. Or issues of financial liability that would result. "WHAT?! I GOT A STI FROM A GOVERNMENT REGULATED BROTHEL?!"

That's all. I'm pretty much out of ideas.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Whether women like it or not, sex in general is a commodity. Male, female, whatever - it's commodity. It has been for thousands of years, and will continue to be, illegal or not. Neither you nor anyone else will change this.

I can't disagree that sex is a commodity or even a bodily function. It's status alone as a commodity doesn't mean it should be legalized though. Uranium is a commodity, but does that mean we shouldn't prohibit the sale of it? There's too many issues of liability, so it's easier to criminalize it.

On the other hand if the government gets away with taxing bodily functions then the sky is the limit. It won't be long before we see fart taxes to combat global warming.... uhh too late?

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Could you explain how you went from selling sex to Monsato and agriculture? I mean, I THINK I see the point you're trying to make, but from my perspective, you're so off base with this one. =/

Probably.

I don't just want to give anybody, especially not some biotech corp. any more
leeway into messing with my man essence. (or DNA) I'm not comfortable with how many legal rights and patents they have already. There's too many unintended consequences that could result if sex were thrown into the public domain.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

What's the crime there?

Soliciting a hooker is a misdemeanor. It's likely that all that would be handed out is a fine and possibly some community service. That's assuming that the assistant DA or judge on your case is not a feminist or social conservative. Then you're screwed, and I agree with what you said about putting horny people in jail. Barring that it's just another nominal fee on the "service".

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Do you know how many women are in the sex industry unwillingly these days?

I doubt there's a lot of sex slavery in the US. The Feds are pretty good at cracking down on that sort of thing.

Care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by Grail

To be honest, what would be the big difference between legalizing prostitution, and oh, let's say building an amusement park?

It's easy to regulate static locations. It's much harder to regulate moving people with their traveling "rides" and "amusements".

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Debating moral subjects is pointless. It's boils down to throwing around euphemisms. Legalization/decriminalization, prostitute/whore, rape/prostitution. It's all doublespeak.

Nothing meaningful is going to be exchanged. Unless you feel you have the right to question someone else's moral/religous beliefs. Which apparently everyone does.

Oh look, the abortion euphemisms are already starting to crop up in the topic. Which has nothing to do with whores or legalized rape!

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Was Watts really saying that people would start patenting tricks?

Hypothetically, yes. Realistically, who knows?

I lack foresight into the possibilities. Only thing I was saying is that if DNA can be patented anything is possible.

My position was that opposition to legalization could easily be found on the reactionary ideology, social tension, and/or unforeseen consequences (besides more regulation/taxes) that such a political move would create. To often people are far too willing to upset the balance the status quo creates without thinking about the negative social/political consequences.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

The point of changing the status quo is because the boat -needs- to be rocked.

Where's the proof?

According to census data in 2006, Nevada is ranked 8th in having the highest rape rate. (per capita) Attributing the lower STD/STI rates solely due to the influence of legal prostitution is just as shallow. Sex Education plays just as big of a role as prostitution in preventing STDs/STIs. The health care industry would play a even bigger role in preventing the spread of STDs/STIs.

It's not like everybody fucks prostitutes.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

We're not talking morals, we're talking legality.

Red herring. It's already been stated that there are social and moral concerns with legalization.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

As always, Watts, you're arguing semantics to obfuscate a lack of actual substance.

Your ad hominem arguments count as actual substance? Why then feel free to throw as many red herrings or insults at me as you can. Just kidding, I know you'd do that anyway.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Patenting original DNA is a bit more complicated than turning a trick so hard your John comes for 2 minutes and then trying to maintain a monopoly on it. I mean, magic tricks aren't patented either, why are you worried about this mess?

Wrong on both counts. There are patents involving magic tricks. I'll get to that later. The bigger issue is our legal system. This is where the problems with our legal system become readily apparent. Both "tricks" could be considered trade secrets. Which means it's even easier to maintain a monopoly. Wikipedia does a better job of explaining....

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_rights_to_magic_methods

Magic methods are effectively forms of trade secret and share many characteristics of trade secrets in other business sectors. As such there is a significant body of law that falls under the headings of "confidentiality" and "contract law" that might be used to control or protect them. These measures can effectively allow a perpetual monopoly in secret information - ie. it does not expire as would a patent or copyright.

That link will provide patent information for magic tricks.

This is where the bio-tech corporation comparison comes into play. It gets even better.... I mean absolutely hilarious given the context we're talking about.

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_rights_to_magic_methods

A company or individual can protect their confidential information through non-disclosure contracts with employees or business associates. A magician might therefore ask a partner or fellow magician to sign a non-disclosure agreement before sharing magic methods.

NDA? Holy shit. We might as well add privacy concerns to this legal clusterfuck. This would give brothels plenty of legal leverage through such contracts to blackmail and/or publicly humiliate their clients. Furthermore the government might mandate this sort of information be shared with it. You know, to effectively regulate the brothels and do it's job.

This really isn't a problem right now because brothels in Nevada are too busy in finding some way to obtain legitimacy. That would more then likely change once sex has been commercialized, thus legitimized on a broader scale. All it's gonna take is one person to start a legal action after prostitution is legalized.

I don't think this is a legal problem for Germany and the Netherlands. Differing legal system from ours.

This is all just legal conjecture though. It's not like there's anybody, lawyer or otherwise that would want to manipulate the legal system for their own gain.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Like it, or not morality has played a huge historical role in defining the American legal system. If we didn't legislate morality then slavery would still be an accepted institution of society. Just not a modern one. The only argument the abolitionists had against slavery was a moral one. William H. Seward, a fervent abolitionist argued against slavery based upon a moral argument. The Constitution didn't have much to say in that regard, until an amendment was passed.

Slaves were not citizens, just property. Kinda like fetuses.

Oh, the historical irony.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Grail

I'm not sure what the point of this is, unless you ar referring to the fact that most prositutes nowadays are slaves because of the situations they are in. Granted, not all of them. Though, I do think it's somewhat odd that they are arrested for doing a profession they may not want to be in, but have no way out other than to be arrested.

I wasn't trying to make a comparison between prostitution and slavery.

Merely trying to refute the common held idea in this thread that we aren't free if morality is legislated. Since ethnic minorities (blacks in particular) were only given rights by a series of amendments in the post Civil War era. I'm pointing out where those amendments originated from. Which is a morality based argument by some Republican (Seward) and other abolitionists.

The 13th amendment (Abolition of Slavery) was 100% moral. Slavery is merely a social/economic system that defines the status between labor and production. Much like serfdom. Like I said before, slaves were just property in the eyes of the law. They were not entitled to rights, liberty, or freedom. Which is why any argument against slavery has to involve morality.

The 14th & 15th amendments that quickly followed, (essentially both race rights laws) would have never existed without the 13th amendment being passed in the first place.

The last bit, I was referencing the irony I find between the Dred Scott decision and pro-abortion rhetoric.

FELIPE NO