Should prostition be legalised? If men (and women) want casual sex, is it immoral to pay for sex, or would the fact that it would be lisenced make it safer.
The women (and men) could be health screened every 3 months or so, and the brothals be made safe and clean.
Thought it would be more interesting to start a different debate.
Originally posted by bambeeIt works in Nevada, right? Sure why not. Better having people earn a living this way than to live off the system, right? Provided that it is safe and monitored.
Should prostition be legalised? If men (and women) want casual sex, is it immoral to pay for sex, or would the fact that it would be lisenced make it safer.
The women (and men) could be health screened every 3 months or so, and the brothals be made safe and clean.
Thought it would be more interesting to start a different debate.
Originally posted by bambeeI've always though it should be to eliminate the pimps who get the prostitutes hooked on drugs and beat the tar out of them. Too many prostitutes are also abducted, raped, tortured and murdered every year because of their dangerous lifestyle.
Should prostition be legalised? If men (and women) want casual sex, is it immoral to pay for sex, or would the fact that it would be lisenced make it safer.
The women (and men) could be health screened every 3 months or so, and the brothals be made safe and clean.
Thought it would be more interesting to start a different debate.
If legalising prostitution makes life as a prostitute safer, then I am for it (albeit the legislation would have to be extremely stringent). If it does nothing more than make it easier for women to become them while the same dangers exists, then what's the point.
Are there nations in the world where prostitution is legal? Las Vegas? Amsterdam?
Originally posted by darvlayActually I am not sure but I don't believe it is technically "legal" in Las Vegas but it is in other sections of Nevada. I agree with you as far as getting the pimps out of it but what I am afraid what will happen is that the pimps will just turn into "legitimate" businessmen. Over all, I think it would be better if it were legal.
I've always though it should be to eliminate the pimps who get the prostitutes hooked on drugs and beat the tar out of them. Too many prostitutes are also abducted, raped, tortured and murdered every year because of their dangerous lifestyle.
If legalising prostitution makes life as a prostitute safer, then I am for it (albeit the legislation would have ...[text shortened]... he point.
Are there nations in the world where prostitution is legal? Las Vegas? Amsterdam?
1 edit
Originally posted by Joe FistWouldn't it be better to aim for creating a system where nobody had to make a living as a prostitute? As a taxpayer, I would prefer to contribute to the subsidizing of someone's education and living expenses, if that meant they could avoid being a prostitute. Even if prostitution is morally permissible when the prostitute is uncoerced, has access to a secure and sanitary environment, etc., it doesn't follow that prostitution is desirable, nor that it is better having prostitutes than providing them with welfare (or, as we liberals like to call it, compassion and generosity).
It works in Nevada, right? Sure why not. Better having people earn a living this way than to live off the system, right? Provided that it is safe and monitored.
Originally posted by bbarrSincere compassion and generosity are quite different than 'compassion' and 'generosity' exhibited by a taxpayer acting only under the state's compulsion to pay taxes for welfare for fear of being imprisoned.
nor that it is better having prostitutes than providing them with welfare (or, as we liberals like to call it, compassion and generosity).
Originally posted by bbarrWouldn't it be better to aim for creating a system where nobody had to make a living as a prostitute?
Wouldn't it be better to aim for creating a system where nobody had to make a living as a prostitute? As a taxpayer, I would prefer to contribute to the subsidizing of someone's education and living expenses, if that meant could avoid being a prostitute. Even if prostitution is morally permissible when the prostitute is uncoerced, has access to a secure an ...[text shortened]... han providing them with welfare (or, as we liberals like to call it, compassion and generosity).
Yes it would be better to "aim" for that but I think that is a more utopic conversation than the one here is. The reality is there is an epidemic of it where, if better managed, it could at least work better than it does now. I also think the reality is that many, not all, people are lazy and if they could make a significant amount of money for as little work as possible (such as what a prostitute does) they would rather do that. As you can imagine, there are very high end "call girls" who can get $1000 a night. I know we are not really talking about these type of people but the point I am making is that you can give some people all of the opportunity in the world and they still won't take it.
Even if prostitution is morally permissible when the prostitute is uncoerced, has access to a secure and sanitary environment, etc., it doesn't follow that prostitution is desirable, nor that it is better having prostitutes than providing them with welfare (or, as we liberals like to call it, compassion and generosity).
"Desirable" for whom? I think it's desirable for their clients who tend to be the lonely slobs of the world who have trouble fulfilling their desires in their lives now. If the prostitute is "uncoerced" then doesn't that mean it is desirable to them as well? In no such way am I suggesting some teenage runaway opt for this as a lifestyle choice and we create a system that supports it. I'm just suggesting in a situation where 2 adults of rational, non-drug influenced minds decide to conduct a transaction to meet a "need" each other has, that it should be permissible to do it.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesCompassion and generosity are virtues; they are, by definition, sincere. If you think taxation for the purposes of welfare is inconsistent with either of these virtues, I'd like to see your argument. If your claim is only that it is not compassionate or generous for those who do not want to pay such a tax to do so under state coersion, then your claim is trivially true and irrelevant. I'm talking about willingly paying such a tax so as to minimize prostitution. As should have been apparent by my post, I was referring to folks being compassionate and generous in willingly supporting paying such a tax. Of course, it wouldn't be compassionate or generous for a libertarian to grudgingly pay such a tax under threat of state sanction.
Sincere compassion and generosity are quite different than 'compassion' and 'generosity' exhibited by a taxpayer acting only under the state's compulsion to pay taxes for welfare for fear of being imprisoned.
8 edits
Originally posted by bbarrAs a matter of fact, I do think that involuntary taxation for the purposes of welfare is inconsistent with compassion and generosity.
Compassion and generosity are virtues; they are, by definition, sincere. If you think taxation for the purposes of welfare is inconsistent with either of these virtues, I'd like to see your argument.
First, let us acknowledge that such taxation shows no generosity to those paying the taxes, only to those receiving the funds. Is it generous to take somebody's money from them against their will? Hardly. Compassionate? No. You're telling the taxpayers that you don't care about them, that others' concerns trump theirs. This is not compassionate toward the taxpayers.
Secondly, being forced to spend the fruits of one's labor to provide for another's sustenance is almost equivalent to slavery. The only difference is that in the former, the 'slave' may choose to work, while in the latter, the slave is forced to work. Of course, in the former, if the 'slave' chooses to not work, then he himself effectively become the 'slavemaster', benefitting by force from the labor of others. Compassion and generosity are not consistent with slavery (unless you hold that slaves are acting out of compassion and generosity for their masters), and so I'd argue that they are not consistent with pseudo-slavery either.
Dr. S
Originally posted by bambeeYes, it should be legalized. It is not immoral to pay for sex. The licencing would make it safer.
Should prostition be legalised? If men (and women) want casual sex, is it immoral to pay for sex, or would the fact that it would be lisenced make it safer.
The women (and men) could be health screened every 3 months or so, and the brothals be made safe and clean.
Thought it would be more interesting to start a different debate.
If legalising prostitution makes life as a prostitute safer, then I am for it (albeit the legislation would have to be extremely stringent). If it does nothing more than make it easier for women to become them while the same dangers exists, then what's the point.
The point is that freedoms should not be taken away without compelling reason. There is no compelling reason to take away the freedom to be a prostitute or hire one.
Wouldn't it be better to aim for creating a system where nobody had to make a living as a prostitute?
That would be a good idea. In such a system, prostitution should be legal.
it doesn't follow that prostitution is desirable, nor that it is better having prostitutes than providing them with welfare
Desireability is an individual judgement. You seem to be implying that it is undesireable by default. It is better having prostitutes than not having prostitutes, assuming there are people who want to fill that role for whatever reason (good money, kinky thrill, whatever).
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFirst, let us acknowledge that such taxation shows no generosity to those paying the taxes, only to those receiving the funds. Is it generous to take somebody's money from them against their will? Hardly. Compassionate? No. You're telling the taxpayers that you don't care about them, that other's concerns trump theirs. This is not compassionate toward the taxpayers.
As a matter of fact, I do think that taxation for the purposes of welfare is inconsistent with compassion and generosity.
First, let us acknowledge that such taxation shows no generosity to those paying the taxes, only to those receiving the funds. Is it generous to take somebody's money from them against their will? Hardly. Compassionate? No ...[text shortened]... masters), and so I'd argue that they are not consistent with pseudo-slavery either.
Dr. S
I agree with you to a point but let's just say, for an example, that you were in a situation that you could not work (injured or whatever). There is a system in place, albeit against the will of Joe Taxpayer (no relation to Joe Fist) that resources are available to assist them. I think it is compassionate that we have a system in place which could be better but attempts to provide for them. At the same time, it is unintentionally compassionate of the taxpayer to be forced to subscribe to it, unless they intend to fly under the radar. I don't know for certain if others feel this way but I, for one, have no issue with my tax dollars going to somebody trying to get on their feet if its in earnest and I wish we could control our tax dollars. I also agree, however, that nobody should be allowed to live off the system if they are in a situation to fend for themselves, either on their back or otherwise.
1 edit
Originally posted by Joe FistYes it would be better to "aim" for that but I think that is a more utopic conversation than the one here is. The reality is there is an epidemic of it where, if better managed, it could at least work better than it does now.
You claim that aiming for the elimination of the social conditions that gives rise to prostitution is too utopian. Then you go on to claim that there is a problem with prostitution being epidemic. Presumably, the majority of those folk working as prostitutes would prefer to do something that isn't so demeaning. I'm not claiming that prostitution is necessarily demeaning, but I take it as obvious that prostitution as a profession tends to be demeaning. Incidentally, this is why I claimed it would be desirable to work towards the end of prostitution: we ought to work towards social conditions that do not require of the poor and disenfranchised that they give up their dignity in order to survive.
I also think the reality is that many, not all, people are lazy and if they could make a significant amount of money for as little work as possible (such as what a prostitute does) they would rather do that. As you can imagine, there are very high end "call girls" who can get $1000 a night. I know we are not really talking about these type of people but the point I am making is that you can give some people all of the opportunity in the world and they still won't take it.
And why is this relevant? This reminds me of the old welfare-mother myths of the Reagan administration. Every single black mother just having children so that she can get an extra check, right? If you bought that, then I guess it's not too hard for you to believe that somebody would choose to be a prostitute 'cause it is easy (you just lie there, after all), and lucrative (ten 'johns' and maybe you can pay the rent). Why, it's like free money!
"Desirable" for whom?
Desirable for those who are now prostitutes, for those who are in financial situations that may necessitate their becoming prostitutes, for those who have loved ones in such straits, and for us as people committed to social justice.
I think it's desirable for their clients who tend to be the lonely slobs of the world who have trouble fulfilling their desires in their lives now.
Yes, their clients desire these services. So? Do you think it ought to be the case that we, as a society, encourage this manner of desire-fulfillment?
If the prostitute is "uncoerced" then doesn't that mean it is desirable to them as well?
No. Nobody is directly coercing me to continue working this afternoon, but that does not mean it is desireable to me to continue working this afternoon. If you reply that I am de fact coerced because I need to work to subsist, then the same argument applies to the prostitute.
In no such way am I suggesting some teenage runaway opt for this as a lifestyle choice and we create a system that supports it. I'm just suggesting in a situation where 2 adults of rational, non-drug influenced minds decide to conduct a transaction to meet a "need" each other has, that it should be permissible to do it.
Of course, I agree that such a transaction is permissible. The question, I take it, is the extent to which the prostitute has other options. If it is the case that this transaction is necessary for her in order to put food on the table or a roof over her head, then surely something has gone wrong. Just because some state of affairs is permissible, it doesn't follow that there aren't alternate realizable states of affairs that are substantially better from a moral points of view.
[/b]
Originally posted by Joe FistIn this situation, what makes my concerns superior to those of Joe? Simply the fact that he "has" and I "don't have"?
I agree with you to a point but let's just say, for an example, that you were in a situation that you could not work (injured or whatever). There is a system in place, albeit against the will of Joe Taxpayer (no relation to Joe Fist) that resources are available to assist them.
Suppose I want to buy a big screen TV but can't afford it. Am I justified in stealing from a millionaire because he "has" and I "don't have" ?
If not, what do you see as the difference between the two cases?
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou are confused about the content of my post. Please reread it and tell me where I claimed that it was either compassionate and generous for the state to impose a tax, or for people to pay a tax under threat of coersion.
As a matter of fact, I do think that involuntary taxation for the purposes of welfare is inconsistent with compassion and generosity.
First, let us acknowledge that such taxation shows no generosity to those paying the taxes, onl ...[text shortened]... hat they are not consistent with pseudo-slavery either.
Dr. S
I'll repost the relevant portion of text. I've used bold text so that you will pay attention, and I've done you the favor of italicizing key words:
I would prefer to contribute to the subsidizing of someone's education and living expenses, if that meant they could avoid being a prostitute.
I'm talking about willingly paying such a tax so as to minimize prostitution. As should have been apparent by my post, I was referring to folks being compassionate and generous in willingly supporting paying such a tax.
The claim here, once again, is that it is compassionate and generous to willing tax one's self so as to benefit those who otherwise would have to prostitute themselves. As I mentioned above, it is trivially true that begrudgingly paying a tax under duress is neither compassionate nor generous. Please, do not accuse me of claiming that Libertarians are either compassionate or generous when it comes to issues of welfare or social justice. I don't think anything of the sort.