Free Republic

> Google is today what AOL was in the 90’s. So take heart, like AOL, they won’t last.

It’s been 10 years. Looks like I was right and you two were wrong. Everyone who compared Google and AOL missed the whole point. You made classic mistake of believing your opponent was stupid.

Actually, the person you were responding to is correct. “Dual criminality” is usually a requirement for extradition. I don’t know what is in the treaty between Sweden and the US, but considering Assange has made it this far, he isn’t stupid, and it is known that he has been limiting his travels to countries where he feels safe. For a moment, imagine if the roles were reversed. Do you think the US would extradite someone running a Wikileaks-like site and posting Russian military secrets?

Actually, the person you were responding to is correct. “Dual criminality” is usually a requirement for extradition. I don’t know what is in the treaty between Sweden and the US, but considering Assange has made it this far, he isn’t stupid, and it is known that he has been limiting his travels to countries where he feels safe. For a moment, imagine if the roles were reversed. Do you think the US would extradite someone running a Wikileaks-like site and posting Russian military secrets?

Breaking news: Mafia boss arrested while reading this article

Read my other posts, and you’ll see why I put “right” in quotes in the post you are referring to. There is no word in the English language that has the connotation that I was trying to get across in that post. How would you describe free speech in China? Is the freedom of speech a right that has been denied or a right that is nonexistant in China? If we say that it is a right that is nonexistant, one could then argue that in an anarchy, anything you do is now a right. If you approach the situation from the other side; that there is a predefined set of rights that is either secured by the government or denied, then your reasoning stands. My goal would be for the two definitions to ultimately be the same - there is no law forbidding any action that does not infringe upon the rights of others. It would be the responsibility of the individual to be a moral citizen, not the burden of the government to force everyone into the mold.

Is adultery illegal? Is divorce illegal? It is not prostitution that is the problem in the situation you describe; it is husband who abandon his family.

If you read my other posts, you would see that I agree with this assessment.

Only someone who fears freedom, distrusts liberty, and does not recognize personal accountability believes our rights come from a government created list, and would ask such a silly question.

Or someone who doesn't want to put words in people's mouths. The whole reason I asked that question was to get people to admit that they want laws in place as a form a social engineering. See this post.

No, you're calling them childish because you don't have the answers.

I'm not going to do them justice in a post, just encourage you to do some research if you are truly interested and not just out for mindless debate.

I encourage you to do research. My questions were rhetorical; I've done the research, I have my answers. It is fairly clear that you do not, and you are now replying in this manner because you do not wish to question your beliefs.

As for the above issue you raised, rights are God-given and endowed in us, His creation. Any society that respects that fact, respects the rights of its citizens. Any society that rejects that fact (and instead assumes rights come from government or some other man-made institution) rejects the natural rights of man and I would say that those men have given away their rights.

Ah, circular logic. Any society that respects rights, has rights. Any society that doesn't respect rights, doesn't have them. Wow, how self-evident.

Ah, ad hominem. How is it false or anti-American? You will find many people who are pro-America with different views on morality, even within those adhering to Judeo-Christian ethics. For instance, how immoral is pre-marital sex? Should we deport the majority of young people because they aren't conforming to the "no sex before marriage" notions, and hence they are anti-American?

That hasn't worked well. People who are compelled to be virtuous because of law aren't actually virtuous. I suppose by your standards, adultery and homosexuality should be illegal.

IOW, it's not about "me."

I would say that it is the other way round. You want to enforce your notions of virtue upon others. I would say, let every man choose the path that he will lead so long as it does not impinge upon the the paths of others. I will be "virtuous," and I will try to raise my children to do the same. However, it is not my place to enforce my views upon my neighbor. Nor has it been shown that legislation has been effective in that regard.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Rights, if they are truly rights, can't be taken away by government without grave injustice.

What is the litmus test for whether something is a right or not? If it can be taken away without grave injustice? Define grave injustice. What if the government forbids you to do something and it is only a minor injustice? What if something is legal in one country and illegal in another country, without any difference in repercussions between the two?

The Ninth Amendment is vary vague, and we see the government taking away many "rights" without any problem. Furthermore, other countries do not go by the US constitution. Does that mean that they don't have rights?

So what is the litmus test to determine if something is a right? Is free speech a right? In many "human institutions" are quite effective at infringing upon those rights. Is the right to life a right? Many "human institutions" are quite effective at killing masses of people.

However, you do seem to be getting close to establishing a definition. Human institutions may infringe upon "God-given" rights to prevent infringement of someone else's rights. This is my stance on how governments should legislate; your rights end where mine begin. Thus, when applied to prostitution, there should not be a law against it. After all, whose rights is someone infringing when they solicit a prostitute, or when a woman willing sells her body? People may find the process detestable; I will never pay for sex, and I will look down upon people who do. However, I will not legislate my morality on others.

Then your definition would be wrong.

Do you have a better definition?

Fine, is the spread of STDs being curbed? There have been some studies suggesting the spread of STDs by prostitutes being curbed through its legalization.

I agree with this rule. This is the litmus test I would apply. It does not necessarily have any basis in morality.

By the way, what you said does not contradict anything I said. You have further backing than saying "you just know."

Ah, but I did not say that. I said that the government secures rights by curbing other ones. I would define a right as being anything that the government doesn't forbid you to do. In the state of anarchy, there is no government, so you aren't forbidden from doing anything, so you have the right to do anything you wish. With a government in place, you are forbidden to murder people. Hence, your right to life is secured, even if it is not expressly secured by the government. You are forbidden to steal, hence your right to property is secured.

So how do I determine if a right exists or doesn't? What is the litmus test? You can't say, "You just know." That won't fly in court.

The issue is if prostitution should be legal or not. By making it illegal, is the spread of STDs being stopped? I would say that it isn't.

You are just arguing semantics. How would you define a right? Is there some clear test that I can apply that would say if something is or isn’t a right?

And guess what, prostitution is illegal there too (you haven't specified any countries, but so far, I'! Wow, those laws sure work well, don't they?

Besides, I'm not sure where you are getting your HIV/AIDS data from. I have heard of three things causing the massive spread of HIV in Africa:

• Rape. Gang rapes are a huge problem. Remember that lady that made the anti-rape condom thing?
• Wife inheritance. If a man dies, his brother "inherits" the wife in many place. If the man died of AIDS, the wife probably has HIV. After repeated sexual encounters, the brother will also get HIV.
• Odd HIV cures. They believe that if you get HIV, you should have sex with a virgin, as that will cure it. Also, there is poor education about HIV. Many African governments officially denied the existence of HIV, and some still do not recognize that it is sexually transmitted. One official even thought that showering after having sex would protect him from HIV.

Besides, I DO believe in legislating morality. You know, little things like murder, rape, theft, pedophilia, bestiality, etc... ALL laws legislate morality to some degree.

I've already replied to this argument.