Should prostitution be legal?

[perplexity]

A question then. In your practical example of the supermarket going up outside my bedroom window, what would you counsel an individual to do (assuming a fully entrenched libertarian government) to prevent the supermarket from being built? (also assuming that you don't enjoy the blazing flourescent nightlighting and the soothing sounds of grocery carts crashing into each other.

Is that a serious question?

Except for the extremely rich or otherwise influential a lone individual is not going to prevent it, nor usually would a well organised group of individuals.

I have suffered some considerable experience of this sort of thing, what used to laughingly be called "planning" but more recently "development control", with a wry smile.

To get the best result bypass the bureaucracy; go straight to the developer or his architect to talk face to face, and be realistic about what sort of mercy to beg for.

--- Ron.

 

[John99]

I think it should, however I also think the women should be regularly tested for sexual diseases. And they should have a nice clean place where you can have sex with them. And all prices should be regulated. I also believe there should be degree given to prostitutes and it should also be a subject you can study and learn sexual acts to please man and this should be funded by the government.

And before anyone says: "This your way of justifying your addiction?"

Its not about justifying, some people like having sex with prostitutes I'm thinking about other people. Doesn't necessarily mean I like having sex with prostitutes.

Anyway...
I'm looking at it from a philanthropist point of view. Well the government could tax prostitutes to raise the funds for their activities. And why shouldn't prostitution be a career choice? It would create job opportunities for females. especially in 3rd world countries where prostituting is rampant and there is not much protection for the prostitutes of her clients. Prostitution happens anyway, why make criminals out of people? why not make everyone a criminal who has sex with a women he is not married to? why the double standards?

Some prostitutes enjoy being prostitutes. Legalizing it would be the best thing. Young girls will be prostitutes regardless. My mate had met a prostitute she was richer then him and she happened to enjoy what she did.

I say make it legal:

My money (taxpayer money) is used for prostitution sting operations.

My money is used to convict prostitutes and their customers.

My money used to detox prostitutes becasue they get get paid in black market with heroin, crack, meth, etc.

My money is used to house prostitutes and their customers in jail.

I, for one, would rather have my money be spent on better things. Plus, if prostitution is regulated and tolerated, the black market would all but vanish by way of basic economics and as a result, there will be less stigmatization of prostitutes as "crack-whores".

thousands of dollars are being wasted throwing prostitutes and those who use them in jail and turning them into hardcore criminals..etc..etc.. Legalizing prostitution would eliminate the spread of diseases,as testing would be required, women wouldn't be taken advantage by "pimps," who abuse them and use thier money, and the clients woudn't have to worry about being thrown in jail. Most prostitutes are forced into the business because they can't make money in any other means, it's not like they "wanted" to be a prostitute cause thier a "skank" they just got "stuck" with the job, and recognizing them as a legal employee would benefit everyone. We should tax the rich businessman who use them. It's like abortion..if you make it illegal..abortion would still go on, it won't eliminate the problem...but more peopele would die from trying to abort in dangerous illegal ways.

People are going to do it regardless of being it being illegal. Actually trying to help them an setting up clinics and testing them giving them education on how to give good sex and giving them degrees would be much better then just making them into criminals.

Your thoughts?

Future scholar?

 

[superluminal]

Is that a serious question?

Except for the extremely rich or otherwise influential a lone individual is not going to prevent it, nor usually would a well organised group of individuals.

I have suffered some considerable experience of this sort of thing, what used to laughingly be called "planning" but more recently "development control", with a wry smile.

To get the best result bypass the bureaucracy; go straight to the developer or his architect to talk face to face, and be realistic about what sort of mercy to beg for.

--- Ron.

Of course it's serious. I want to hear a libertarians answer to the supermarket connundrum.

P.S. Did I accidentally kill your favorite pooch or something?

 

[perplexity]

Of course it's serious. I want to hear a libertarians answer to the supermarket connundrum.

P.S. Did I accidentally kill your favorite pooch or something?

Do you actively involve yourself with local government affairs, or do you intend to?

-- Ron.

 

[superluminal]

Do you actively involve yourself with local government affairs, or do you intend to?

-- Ron.

Relevance please?

 

[perplexity]

Relevance please?

Yes.

I wonder how you relate to the issue.

Are you harmed, directly or indirectly?

I appreciate personal experience, first hand knowledge.

--- Ron.

 

[TimeTraveler]

Prostitution is legal my naive friends. Go to a bar, buy drink. Go on a date, buy dinner and give nice shiny gift. Prostitution now is gifts for sex instead of money, but it still exists. There are women who have sex for favors, I'm not talking gifts, I'm talking "favors" as in quid-pro-quo type favors. There are women who have sex for raises, and men do these things too.

On a certain level we all sell our bodies, it's just that street prostitution is illegal. Even if you sell pro tapes and are a porn star this form of prostition is legal, only street prostituion where a hooker is outside begging for sex is illegal.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

FR,

A question then. In your practical example of the supermarket going up outside my bedroom window, what would you counsel an individual to do (assuming a fully entrenched libertarian government) to prevent the supermarket from being built? (also assuming that you don't enjoy the blazing flourescent nightlighting and the soothing sounds of grocery carts crashing into each other.

The short answer is that you may very well not be able to prevent it. Sad as that is, the harm that will be done to you and others in your plight is far less than the harm that is invariably done to huge numbers of people by laws like this.

The long answer is that in a city without zoning laws supermarkets might not be economically viable. The shop next to your house would more likely be a neighborhood mom'n'pop store like they have in San Francisco. People love the convenience of walking to the corner and don't feel the need to go to a supermarket nearly as often, which as a result are far less common than in most American cities.

This is a perfect example of how zoning laws, like so many laws, end up being nothing more than corporate welfare. It's difficult for individuals and partnerships to build and operate one supermarket, much less the chain structure that gives them their competitive advantage to buy in bulk from corporate producers.

Sure there are people who don't like living near a mom'n'pop, but "near" in this context simply means a few doors on either side. And there are plenty of people who don't mind at all because they're the noisy neighbors you don't want around either and zoning laws don't do anything about them.

 

[TimeTraveler]

The supermarket was a stupid invention from the start because it lowers the quality of the food. If we sell wives and husbands in a supermarket format, it will lower the quality.

On the other hand, people should have the option to buy a partner. It's rational for me because I'd have less competition in the contest of winning a partner.

 

[superluminal]

Yes.

I wonder how you relate to the issue.

Are you harmed, directly or indirectly?

I appreciate personal experience, first hand knowledge.

--- Ron.

Ok. No, I am not involved in local politics. Except for the normal voting and such.

 

[superluminal]

The short answer is that you may very well not be able to prevent it. Sad as that is, the harm that will be done to you and others in your plight is far less than the harm that is invariably done to huge numbers of people by laws like this.

The long answer is that in a city without zoning laws supermarkets might not be economically viable. The shop next to your house would more likely be a neighborhood mom'n'pop store like they have in San Francisco. People love the convenience of walking to the corner and don't feel the need to go to a supermarket nearly as often, which as a result are far less common than in most American cities.

This is a perfect example of how zoning laws, like so many laws, end up being nothing more than corporate welfare. It's difficult for individuals and partnerships to build and operate one supermarket, much less the chain structure that gives them their competitive advantage to buy in bulk from corporate producers.

Sure there are people who don't like living near a mom'n'pop, but "near" in this context simply means a few doors on either side. And there are plenty of people who don't mind at all because they're the noisy neighbors you don't want around either and zoning laws don't do anything about them.

I suppose this makes sense. I currently enjoy a quiet rural existence in an Ag zone. I'd hate to have that intruded upon by any commercial enterprise. Selfish, maybe. But true nonetheless.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Muslim

I think clean regularly health inspected brothels should be legal,as it is a matter of choice. BUT this would NOT clean up our streets as the sort of prostitutes (drug addicts) that stand on street corners would not get emnployment at a nice clean user friendly brothel. Have you seen the state of some of these 'girls' and the 'age' some are old enough to be your gran. toothless, unwashed, bony hags.

Should we legalise the whole lot then and get it all off our streets?

Well I would not want to live next to a woman having gentleman callers at all hours of day and night, who upon seeing me may wonder if I am one too, or my kids.

As for training them, are you nuts? Why not train men to service women and give them certificates so the ones you sleep with don't have to fake it Muslim?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Yes, so we should repeal the drug laws too. People wouldn't have to turn to crime to buy drugs if they were not sold at black market prices.

Bad laws breed more bad laws. The consequences of one are used as justification for the next one. It's a death spiral.

 

[SoLiDUS]

Prostitution is already legal... what do you think clubs/bars are? You pay the girls with booze and they polish your knob after a set limit.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Prostitution is already legal... what do you think clubs/bars are? You pay the girls with booze and they polish your knob after a set limit.

if a girl intends to have sex with you, you don't have to ply her with drinks and get her beyond the capacity for informed 'consent', that by the way makes it 'rape' not prostitution.

 

[makeshift]

Yeah, but if you get her drunk, she got drunk by her own consent. She is still responsible for her own actions, drunk or not.

I hate hearing about women complaining about being taken advantage of at college campuses. Well, by that I really mean this scenario: they get really hammered, fuck some dude and regret it later. Then they blame the guy they fucked like it's his fault and they bitch like they shouldn't have been taking advantage.

They're responsible for their actions, drunk or not. If they don't want to do things they're regret later, they shouldn't get intoxicated. Well. That's all, I guess.

 

[Muslim]

Muslim

I think clean regularly health inspected brothels should be legal,as it is a matter of choice.

Exactly

BUT this would NOT clean up our streets as the sort of prostitutes (drug addicts) that stand on street corners would not get emnployment at a nice clean user friendly brothel.

I am talking about legit prostitutes, not all prostates are drug addicts.

Have you seen the state of some of these 'girls' and the 'age' some are old enough to be your gran. toothless, unwashed, bony hags.

No I have not seen them! Your claim is highly exaggerated. They probably do not even compromise of even 1% of the world prostitute population.

Should we legalise the whole lot then and get it all off our streets?

No we can have certain section of cities where prostitutes can freely operate.

Well I would not want to live next to a woman having gentleman callers at all hours of day and night, who upon seeing me may wonder if I am one too, or my kids.

So now you're wanting to discriminate, thats silly as seeing I don't want black people living next to me because someone might think I am a drug dealer.

As for training them, are you nuts? Why not train men to service women and give them certificates so the ones you sleep with don't have to fake it Muslim?

Majority of the prostitutes are women, and the men already have the money and education to have sex with them. We should give degrees to women prostitutes and make it a career choice for them so they can get a job as a prostitute and be employed. I didn't go create women for the pleasure of man? he created the woman so the man would not be lonely.

 

[Muslim]

Future scholar?

I want to be a dictator one day.

 

[Satyr]

Who in here has not prostituted himself?

The only difference is the price.

The cheap ones, the less discriminating ones, are called: whores.
The more expensive ones, the more discriminating ones, are called: lovers, workers, wives/husbands etc.

All human relationships are Give & Take arrangements.
One gives in order to receive.

One sells in order to buy.
One sacrifices and invests in order to gain.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Yeah, but if you get her drunk, she got drunk by her own consent. She is still responsible for her own actions, drunk or not.



They're responsible for their actions, drunk or not. If they don't want to do things they're regret later, they shouldn't get intoxicated. Well. That's all, I guess.

The law is in the process of changing to demosntrate that a woman once drunk is not capable of 'informed consent' you guys better watch out. I am not in agreement with this change, but they are trying to make it happen, hence my comment. I saw a program about 'date rape' and the fact they are extending it beyond 'if she said no and you carried on it's rape' to 'if she said yes but she was drunk then she was not capable of giving informed consent so it's rape'

They want to stop men taking advantage of drunk women, but what they are forgetting is that the male is also likely to be drunk and how is he supposed to assess the point at which the woman is incapable of informed consent?