prostitution

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
My argument was not constructed so as to demonstrate the truth of this tautology. It was to highlight that I was referring to the entire body of taxpayers, not only the "voluntary taxpayers," as you call them. This distinction was essential to make.

Yes, taxes apply to all those to whom taxes apply. Sometimes, however, the body of taxpayers are impacted differently, or not at all, by a single tax. This allows for the possibility that a tax may be mandatory and yet compassionate and generous.

Originally posted by bbarr
The claim is that it would be compassionate and generous to support and willingly pay such a tax.

I am not convinced that it is C&G to support such a tax being passed into law.
I will grant that it is C&G to willingly pay it.

I have already demonstrated that the tax itself is not C&G; and you have vehemently said that you have not actively disputed this, so I presume for now that you agree.

I have trouble accepting that it is C&G to support a law that itself is not C&G. By supporting the law, you are supporting the uncompassionate and ungenerous aspects of the law. You as a supporter know that the unwilling taxpayers will be treated uncompassionately. I understand your argument about spreading this lack of compassion thin across a large body of people, and that this mitigates the lack of compassion that any one person receives. But I don't think this thin spread quite balances the scales.

What would balance the scales is if all of the compassionate people expressed their C&G by donating their money to the welfare of others. Then nobody would experience any level of uncompassionate treatement, as they do in your proposed solution.

In friendship,
Dr. S

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I am not convinced that it is C&G to support such a tax being passed into law.
I will grant that it is C&G to willingly pay it.

I have already demonstrated that the tax itself is not C&G; and you have vehemently said that you have not actively dispute this, so I presume for now that you agree.

I have trouble accepting that it is C&G to support ...[text shortened]... el of uncompassionate treatement, as they do in your proposed solution.

In friendship,
Dr. S

You've demonstrated nothing. Anyway, I've revised my view about whether the tax may, in and of itself, qualify as C&G. I now think that this is possible, and I've sketched out, in rough form, how the tax could be structured so as to qualify as C&G. See my post above where I mention an exemption for the worst off, progressive distributions, etc.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
By supporting the law, you are supporting the uncompassionate and ungenerous aspects of the law. You as a supporter know that the unwilling taxpayers will be treated uncompassionately. I understand your argument about spreading this lack of compassion thin across a large body of people, and that this mitigates the lack of compassion that any one person receives. But I don't think this thin spread quite balances the scales.

You have to break a few rich eggs to make a compassion omelette.

Originally posted by bbarr
See my post above where I mention an exemption for the worst off, progressive distributions, etc.

You issue this imperative as if it is I who owe something to you. I refuse for now, and instead ask whether and why your taxation solution is more C&G than my charity solution. Is it in fact more just, or more C&G, or is it really just a convenient piggybacking onto an already existing mechanism of redistribution of wealth?

Originally posted by nemesio
This seems disingenous. I've seen many documentaries
about prostitution and, when ultimately asked, 'Would you
want your daughter to become a prostitute?,' the answer has
been invariably, 'No.'

I can't substantiate that there isn't at least one person in
the whole world who would want their daughter to be a prostitute,
(as this would require ...[text shortened]... in my experience, I've never seen it, either in countries where it
is legal or not.

Nemesio

This is not what I am saying. I have a daughter and I would probably kill myself if she were ever to be a prostitute. I've seen many documentaries myself and all I am saying is that, such as in other countries, Prostitution should be allowed to exist. Even in the circumstance of 1 out of every 100 prostitutes willingly go into the "profession" they should have that right. My arguement is that prostitution is not wrong. Maybe 98% of all participants in it are in under the wrong circumstances and whatever help that can be given should be given. I don't believe the act itself is wrong.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You issue this imperative as if it is I who owe something to you. I refuse for now, and instead ask whether and why your taxation solution is more C&G than my charity solution. Is it in fact more just, or more C&G, or is it really just a convenient piggybacking onto an already existing mechanism of redistribution of wealth?

Yes that's quite subtle. I know what is owed, thank you. 28 lines with two pair of couplets. My taxation solution is not, of necessity, more C&G. If those willing to give were possessed of wealth sufficient to remedy the problem, then that would be ideal. In cases where those willing to give can, at best, form only part of the solution, it would obviously be less C&G to allow acute and substantial harms to continue when nomimal sacrifices distributed widely (and not ranging over those for whom any sacrifice would fail to count as nominal) could remedy those harms. This seems evident to me, just as it seems evident to me that if I pass a drowning child in a lake, it is obligatory for me to help, even though I may ruin my clothing or be late for a class.

Originally posted by bbarr
it seems evident to me that if I pass a drowning child in a lake, it is obligatory for me to help, even though I may ruin my clothing or be late for a class.

That seems evident to me as well. But there is a flaw in this analogy - if I'm in the same lake and don't find it obligatory to help, it is not C&G or just for you to force me to ruin my clothing or be late for class, while you sit high and dry in your own boat, saying that since you find it obligatory to help, that I should help even though I don't have that same finding.

Of course, to avoid our previous confusion, I'll make clear now that when I use 'you' above, it is meant to be analogous to any supporter of the tax under discussion, and not in in reference to you the reader. Similarly, I use 'I' to represent an analog to the unwilling taxpayer, not in reference to me, the author of this sound analysis.

Dr. S

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
That seems evident to me as well. But there is a flaw in this analogy - if I'm in the same lake and don't find it obligatory to help, it is not C&G or just for you to force me to ruin my clothing or be late for class, while you sit high and dry in your own boat, saying that since you find it obligatory to help, that I should help even though I don ...[text shortened]... g to the unwilling taxpayer, not in reference to me, the author of this sound analysis.

Dr. S

Your analysis is unsound. If you (as the unregenerate lake-goer) do not find it obligatory to help, then you are making a moral error. You may think that it is impermissible to exert any coercive force on you in an attempt to get you to do your duty and save the child, but that is because you are adopting a particular view about rights. I take it that you think that having a right to life, say, means nothing more than that others ought not kill you. The right to life, on this view, is essentially a right to non-interference, it is a liberty right. I think that the right to life has an additional element, namely that others are obligated to render a reasonable amount of aid in order to help you when your life is in danger. That is, I take the right to life to be both a liberty right and a claim right (or, in other jargon, the right to life has both postive and negative elements). So, if I was sitting high and dry, it would still be permissible for me to exert a minimal amount of coercive force in order to get you to act according to your moral obligations (but only if I cannot render sufficient aid without incurring some harm substantially worse than that you would suffer in virtue of being coerced, or if I cannot render sufficient aid at all.) If I can save the child myself, it would be perverse for me to refrain from doing so just in order to get you to do it.

Originally posted by bbarr
Your analysis is unsound. If you (as the unregenerate lake-goer) do not find it obligatory to help, then you are making a moral error. You may think that it is impermissible to exert any coercive force on you in an attempt to get you to do ...[text shortened]... or me to refrain from doing so just in order to get you to do it.

For now, I think I hold that life is solely a liberty right, in general.
In general, I do not think I hold that it is a claim right. In some specific cases, it may be, such as ensuring that your children are fed. I see this as distinguished from others in that a parent has already implicitly accepted responsiblity for maintaining the child's life, and thus the child has a moral claim against his parents to keep him alive. My neigbor's child does not have a similar claim against me, and so in general, I don't think every person has a claim against every other person for the maintenance of thier life.

I'll contemplate this until such time as I have something more interesting to occupy my time, such as new and interesting verse that I might happen across.

In friendship, but not claimship,
Dr. S

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
For now, I think I hold that life is solely a liberty right, in general.
In general, I do not think I hold that it is a claim right. In some specific cases, it may be, such as ensuring that your children are fed. I see this as distinguished from others in that a parent has already implicitly accepted responsiblity for maintaining the child's life ...[text shortened]... ew and interesting verse that I might happen across.

In friendship, but not claimship,
Dr. S

Very good, this appears to be the source of our disagreement. You think that claim rights are such that they obtain only in virtue of a contractual arrangement, and you extend your analysis by allowing implicit consent. Now, imagine how far claim rights would extend if you allowed in hypothetical consent as well as implicit consent. You'd get something very much like Rawls' theory of justice as fairness.

Originally posted by darvlay
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?

Prostitution has never been illlegal in New Zealand. If two consenting adults want to have sex, any financial arragements are their concern. The state has never wanted to enquire into what these people decide appropriate to give each other - a dinner, a holiday or other gift or cash. The gap between a prostitute and a sexual partner is not clear cut.

What was illegal up to a year ago was being a pimp and keeping a brothel. These were laws which acted against the interests of the woman and were repelled. The situation now is complete legality for brothels. Really, nothing has changed.

There is a social welfare system which supports anyone without a job. Ads for sex workers are common - and promise enough money for overseas holidays and new cars. I am not convinced there is no element of choice in the profession.

Originally posted by steerpike
Prostitution has never been illlegal in New Zealand. If two consenting adults want to have sex, any financial arragements are their concern. The state has never wanted to enquire into what these people decide appropriate to give each other - a dinner, a holiday or other gift or cash. The gap between a prostitute and a sexual partner is not clear cut.

W ...[text shortened]... days and new cars. I am not convinced there is no element of choice in the profession.

anybody religious that castigates prostitutes is a hypocrite - the church near as dammit invented the profession - where do you think all there gold came from?

😲

Originally posted by bbarr
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 they could avoid ...[text shortened]... e (or, as we liberals like to call it, compassion and generosity).

How will increased subsidization of education and living expenses deal with the demand?

The more prostitutes you get off the street, the higher the demand and the more money there is to be made...

MÅ¥HÅRM

Originally posted by darvlay
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?

Don't hate the game "homo"... how the hell do expect me to suppport my diamond habit? I should reach back and slap yo @ss!!!