Why not legalize prostitution?

I'm not sure what it was that was proven wrong that forced me to change my argument.

I do wish you would elaborate on your problems with my argument about lawmakers knowing the issues better than society. When women weren't allowed to vote it was an incorrect decision but at the time it echoed the prevailing sentiments of the so called free society. Times change, people change, and oddly enough politicians change too. If there weren't any lawmakers who agreed with the bulk of society then it stands to reason that no laws would ever change. I'm not sure why you think society knows more than your typical lawmaker. I enjoy the system of electing representative officials we trust to study the issues and vote on our behalf in order to save us time. Elected officials are the ones who got rid of segregation, not a popular vote by all members of society.

But then again I'm not sure why you brought this up at all since it doesn't directly support your ideals about laws within a free society. I admire your tenacity and I agree with your concept of choosing your own path. But I disagree greatly on what constitutes damage to others.

Perhaps another point of disagreement... Are laws that forbid racial or sexual discrimination moral in nature?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Legislatures will never be able to overturn prostitution bans because of the political ramifications. An opposition candidate running around saying "HE LOVES WHORES" doesn't look good, even if a majority of the population and a majority of the legislature agrees.

See: Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

Who is saying that having sex is a right?

The Supreme Court of the United States, for one.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

Perhaps another point of disagreement... Are laws that forbid racial or sexual discrimination moral in nature?

No. They are based on rights. There's no room to disagree here, if you disagree you're wrong. The facts support me when I say that these laws are based exclusively on the principle of safeguarding rights. Morals just don't come in to it. It's not illegal to discrimate against black people because that would be wrong. It's illegal because the constitution states that we all have equal rights.

You can get a bunch of people together in your house and discuss how much you hate black people all night if you want. What you can't do is infringe on any of a black person's rights. There are a whole bunch of legally protected ways to be a racist if you wish to do so. Your right to be as racist as you wish to be is protected by the Bill of Rights.

Excuse my use of the term "we" when I am not an American.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

killerpineapple

We are not going to change your mind, and honestly I have no desire to. The problem is that our rights and freedom are being warped because of your personal beliefs. You are selfish, but everyone is. The church just so happens to be one of the most selfish entities on the planet, as they constantly feel they should push their view on morals on others , even if they don't want them. Stem Cell research is a excellent example. Something that could save thousands and thousands of lives, yet since the church doesn't deem it moral, they felt they had to ruin it for everyone that doesn't even share their view. Rather than just saying "well we won't use it because it's against our Faith", they felt that had to police the world and figured they spoke for everyone.

You also stated that if religion were banned, you would still do it in private. Is that not the same thing as the argument for prostitution? Paying money for sex is not a problem for most of us, and it yields many benefits, including what we hope would be a decrease in rapes.

I would personally like to see religion gone for good, but that doesn't mean I am going to try and burn down all the church's I can find. I respect your freedom enough to have no issues with you going to church, as long as it is not forced down my throat, which currently in a way, you are.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

No. They are based on rights. There's no room to disagree here, if you disagree you're wrong. The facts support me when I say that these laws are based exclusively on the principle of safeguarding rights. Morals just don't come in to it. It's not illegal to discrimate against black people because that would be wrong. It's illegal because the constitution states that we all have equal rights.

Thats both arrogant and dishonest.
You're arguing that the letter of the law is the spirit of the law. You're stating that the legal application of "rights" is the be-all-end-all. Perhaps legally speaking, yes you are correct. But it seems apparent that KP is leading to the wider context. By your assumptions, we would not have any need to reinterpret and reapply the constitution in any other contexts but the ones that it was established in.
However, the legal application of these "rights" is directed by, and subservient to, the morality of the greater public(though this concept does have a feedback influence on which direction the public morality moves).
Lets put it this way. Jim Crow laws weren't violations of legal rights until the greater public, and by extension the courts, felt that it was morally abhorrent, and in turn legally unacceptable. Given that our country's legal system operates on a system of natural rights, it was inevitable that these rights were used to justify the ban, and legally establish the greater morality.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not here defending killerpineapple. (Frankly, it looks like he just wants to get the last word.) I just can't sit around and tolerate that farce of a statement to stand.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by packrat

Thats both arrogant and dishonest.

I'll admit to arrogance in that instance, since I'm certain that the facts back my position. I won't admit to dishonesty, because I meant what I wote

Quote:

You're arguing that the letter of the law is the spirit of the law. You're stating that the legal application of "rights" is the be-all-end-all. Perhaps legally speaking, yes you are correct.

I'm speaking legally, since we are discussing the law. KP's application of a wider context is nothing but a smokescreen to justify taking the rights of free men. It's precisely the same kind of absurd truthiness that the governments have been forcefeeding British and Americans for years now.

The law takes no moral position. It is nowhere stated that racial discrimination is wrong, or that racism is wrong. It is stated that racial discrimination is prohibited because the priniciples of a free society state that we may excercise our freedoms only in so far as they do not infringe on the freedom of others. That's all. If the principles of law were intended to serve morality, then racism itself would be prohibited, as would many other things which currently are not.

If you think I'm wrong, that does not trouble me. If you think I'm being dishonest about my views, that would bother me a lot.

Originally Posted by packrat

Lets put it this way. Jim Crow laws weren't violations of legal rights until the greater public, and by extension the courts, felt that it was morally abhorrent, and in turn legally unacceptable.

Not true. The Jim Crow laws were always in violation of the basic rights with which all men are endowed. All men are considered equal, it says so right there in the constitution. The Jim Crow laws were an obvious violation of the constitution.

Quote:

I just can't sit around and tolerate that farce of a statement to stand.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but lets see what you think of my response.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Soluzar

No. They are based on rights. There's no room to disagree here, if you disagree you're wrong.

I would say that racial discrimination is a moral issue but it turns out that if I do I'm wrong. Some people, lots of them in fact, don't want the government limiting their rights to choose who they can hire, or let in a restaurant, or admit into a school.

How ya doing, buddy?

I guess it is kind of fucked up. In order to assure equal rights they have to impose morals.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

I would say that racial discrimination is a moral issue but it turns out that if I do I'm wrong. Some people, lots of them in fact, don't want the government limiting their rights to choose who they can hire, or let in a restaurant, or admit into a school.

And GASP! Lots of people don't want the government limiting their right to choose a profession that does not infringe on anyone else's rights, or harm them in anyway possible.

With prostitution, the only thing you're talking about is the 'collateral' harm that will come with it becoming legalized. That it will hurt your feelings.

Well, I think a lot of small business owners feelings got hurt when wal-mart strolled into town and put them out of business. Should walmart's be illegal now?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

I would say that racial discrimination is a moral issue but it turns out that if I do I'm wrong.

That's not what I said at all. I said that if you think that the law is based on moral principles, you'd be wrong. The facts don't support that conclusion, no matter how arrogant some people might find it of me to say that. The facts support the conclusion that the law is intended to safeguard the equal rights with which all men (and women) are endowed. The whole of American law from the constitution up takes this tone.

Of course racial discrimination is a moral issue to you. You're not wrong, it's a moral issue to a lot of people, but that's not what the law is based on. It just so happens that the protection of the rights of the individual serves what you see as a moral end. A lot of laws designed to protect our rights also serve a moral end, even though they aren't based on any moral principle. How hard is it to understand?

Protecting your rights as an individual stops people from doing to you a lot of things that you would consider immoral. It does so because they don't have the right to limit your freedom by killing you, stealing your property, and discriminating against you based on race, gender, and oh... religious beliefs.

The principle of law is very simple. No person may excercise his rights where such excercise would necessarily infringe upon the free excercise of the rights of another. It's the basis for most of the oldest parts of the law.

Quote:

Some people, lots of them in fact, don't want the government limiting their rights to choose who they can hire, or let in a restaurant, or admit into a school.

I think I covered this already. They didn't start out with the right to limit the free excercise of the rights of another person. That's not something that's been taken from them, its's something they never had. Just like nobody has the right to prevent you from being a Christian.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Soluzar

I'm speaking legally, since we are discussing the law.

If you are speaking of the law, then you are wrong. If you are completely limiting the discussion to that within the legal system, then I concede your point.

Quote:

KP's application of a wider context is nothing but a smokescreen to justify taking the rights of free men. It's precisely the same kind of absurd truthiness that the governments have been forcefeeding British and Americans for years now.

You seem to be misunderstanding me, or maybe I'm just sucking at explaining myself. Officially, the legal systems must remain independent of the transient morality of its constituents. However, to say that the creation and application of the law is irrefutably independent of public morality in real life is pretty naive. What those in my government have been trying to pull off is attempting to make that sort of thing official, which is exceptionally wrong, while doubly being misleading on what the public morality even is. (I don't know whats going on in England at the moment.)

Quote:

If you think I'm wrong, that does not trouble me. If you think I'm being dishonest about my views, that would bother me a lot.

I think you're being dishonest to the nature of law, not your views.

Quote:

Not true. The Jim Crow laws were always in violation of the basic rights with which all men are endowed. All men are considered equal, it says so right there in the constitution. The Jim Crow laws were an obvious violation of the constitution.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Quote:

The law takes no moral position. It is nowhere stated that racial discrimination is wrong, or that racism is wrong. It is stated that racial discrimination is prohibited because the principles of a free society state that we may exercise our freedoms only in so far as they do not infringe on the freedom of others. That's all. If the principles of law were intended to serve morality, then racism itself would be prohibited, as would many other things which currently are not.

I half agree with you there. A law cannot justify itself by reference to any morality, as it is separate from the bounds of the legal system. However, on a philosophical and historical level, the very nature of jurisprudence has been moral. From the first origins in religious code, to modern conceptions of rights-based jurisprudence, legal systems were established to address moral and ethical issues in society.
"Rights" are just another human theoretical construction attempting to codify a universal morality which aims to please the largest number of individuals.

So to answer the original question, laws prohibiting racial and sexual discrimination, while not legally justified by reference to morality, are still, by extension of the nature of law itself, and by the nature of real-world pressures to create and enforce these applications of "rights," moral in nature.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Thanks for explaining your position more clearly Soluzar. I still disagree with you, I think. Brain hurting. 3..2..1...Begin babbling rant:

In nature there are no laws. That is real freedom. It's a true paradox that laws are required to ensure freedom for us humans. There's something innate within a person that let's us know what is right on wrong. With some fundamental issues there is no disagreement. We tend not to even think of those basic concepts of right and wrong as morals. Well, except people like me. I still tend to equate knowing right from wrong with morals. Maybe I'm totally butchering the definition, in which case I'm making it painfully difficult for anyone to understand my already whacked-out position. D'oh!

I like the term 'transient morality'. I can comfortably agree that those types of viewpoints should be left out of the lawmaking process. But in the case of prostitution, I'm bound to see transient morality differently than others. Controversy continues. Whee.

My thanks to many of you. Heh, even the ones who think I'm couldn't possibly be referring to you. Vacation beckons. Brain already shutting down. Don't think I'll be able to fully understand Soluzar and Packrats' thoughts until I get back, but this topic, especially this most recent page, was certainly thought provoking and enjoyable to read.

From this unintentional troll to all of you: Happy new year. Hope to see this thread still kicking in 2008.

Most amazing jew boots

You made the thread interesting. I don't think any of us think of you as a bad person, we just don't have the same moral opinion.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

Thanks for explaining your position more clearly Soluzar. I still disagree with you, I think. Brain hurting. 3..2..1...Begin babbling rant:

That's because you don't understand the nature of the position correctly. You see, we're not arguing fundamental concepts. We're arguing the modern American legal system, and it's really based on relatively simple concepts

Quote:

In nature there are no laws. That is real freedom. It's a true paradox that laws are required to ensure freedom for us humans.

Wrong. That's only "real freedom" for some people. The strong are "free" to take advantage of the weak, and to curtail the freedom of anyone less able than themselves. To ensure the maximum amount of "real freedom" for everyone is what requires a law, and I fail to see the paradox.

Quote:

There's something innate within a person that let's us know what is right on wrong. With some fundamental issues there is no disagreement. We tend not to even think of those basic concepts of right and wrong as morals. Well, except people like me. I still tend to equate knowing right from wrong with morals.

These laws have nothing to do with right and wrong though. They don't tell you what's wrong. They just enforce equal freedom to excercise your rights for everyone. They don't even do that because it's right to do that. They do that because it's in the constitution.

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

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 Watts

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.

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 was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Yes, and if the simple concept of freedom that causes no harm to another shall be the law had been in place, slavery never would have existed in the first place.

Again, Watts wanders in, argues apples and oranges and thinks he's made a point. Do you ever get tired of completely missing the strain of an argument, I wonder?

FELIPE NO

well , it's possible and reasonable to legalize prostitution not until the business of humantrafficking is exterminated!

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by norrispang

well , it's possible and reasonable to legalize prostitution not until the business of humantrafficking is exterminated!

Except that legalizing prostitution institutionalizes it and makes it next to impossible to use any sort of illegal women to do the wo- you know what? Why am I rationalizing this to you? Leave.

How ya doing, buddy?

Denicalis wants you to stop posting entirely, norrispang. I'm going to make it just a bit easier on you, just stop spamming. Stop reviving issues no one's talking about anymore. Have something worthwhile to say. Stop submitting posts like a grade schooler.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Actually Deni, I think he might have a fair point. People smuggling is big fucking business in South East Asia (check his timezone.) And this would only increase the demand if say, Australia, legalised prostitution and we're well on our way there.

However I still think it's a poor argument that the existance of people smugglers should stop us from legalising prostitution. If anything an increased rate of illegal women in the country working in a regulated industry could make it easier for authorities to crack down on people smugglers, as their cliental will be more often identified.

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

Originally Posted by RABicle

Actually Deni, I think he might have a fair point. People smuggling is big fucking business in South East Asia (check his timezone.) And this would only increase the demand if say, Australia, legalised prostitution and we're well on our way there.

However I still think it's a poor argument that the existance of people smugglers should stop us from legalising prostitution. If anything an increased rate of illegal women in the country working in a regulated industry could make it easier for authorities to crack down on people smugglers, as their cliental will be more often identified.

He doesn't have a fair point. Illegal smuggling of women for the sex trade is a problem because it isn't checked. If it's legalized, these people have to get T4's, they have to pay taxes. They have to be citizens. Illegally smuggled women used in the sex trade are decidedly not legal citizens. The point of legalizing prostitution is that it eliminates the problems associated with it. Mandatory drug/STD testing, legal citizens etc. So human trafficking is fucking horrific, but it has NOTHING to do with legalizing prostitution, mate.

Most amazing jew boots

I just think you're coming down hard on the kid. I agree with you regarding legalising prostitution but human trafficking is an aspect to it (however minor) and to his credit no one had mentioned it until now.
Can't you just calmly explain to him why he's wrong instead of being flat out rude?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by RABicle

I just think you're coming down hard on the kid. I agree with you regarding legalising prostitution but human trafficking is an aspect to it (however minor) and to his credit no one had mentioned it until now.
Can't you just calmly explain to him why he's wrong instead of being flat out rude?

Go check his profile and read the prior posts he made, then you'll see why I reacted to him that way.

How ya doing, buddy?