Your example is ridiculous. If he steals from another, he might steal from me or you, and that harms us. In any case, he did steal from the other, and should be punished (or better, should make good).
If someone diddles a willing prostitute, that in and of itself doesn’t harm the prostitute (who was willing, remember), nor does it increase the risk the person will want harm you or I.
But if you establish precedents that government should restrict certain behaviors, that DOES harm me because government never, ever stops at the limits first imposed on it, and now there are innumerable laws against other things, that infringe on my liberties - and yours too if you would look.
Your example is ridiculous. If he steals from another, he might steal from me or you, and that harms us. In any case, he did steal from the other, and should be punished (or better, should make good).
He might steal from you but he didn't. And even if he did, you wouldn't care so much because he only stole a pen and even if you did care about the pen, for all practical purposes the police simply aren't capable of enforcing a law that goes after pen stealers.
But in our case, Eliot was married. He signed a contract with his wife and broke it. And most women do care a great deal if their husband breaks the contract. And unlike other cases of adultery, it is possible for the govt to enforce because there is a money trail. (also in this case, there is the issue of using public funds)
If someone diddles a willing prostitute, that in and of itself doesn’t harm the prostitute (who was willing, remember), nor does it increase the risk the person will want harm you or I.
His wife certainly wasn't willing. But what about the prostitute? In order for her to be willing, she has to know what she is giving up. She doesn't. She is giving up her human dignity which has an infinite value for a few bucks. In this edge case, I'm saying No, that is an invalid transaction made on false information. In the case of child prostitution you'd probably agree that is also a transaction made on false information. In a case of a kid who buys a candy from a candy store, we'd agree that it is a legitimate transaction and should be legal. In that case, human dignity is not at issue.
But if you establish precedents that government should restrict certain behaviors, that DOES harm me because government never, ever stops at the limits first imposed on it, and now there are innumerable laws against other things, that infringe on my liberties - and yours too if you would look.
well, we can look at some European countries that have no problem with legalizing prostitution and they also have no problem with socialism. We've also seen that as a result of the sexual liberation, there are a lot of single moms and they are a key constituency for the democrats. They want govt to provide stability. If we had a culture that promoted strong families, there would be less dependency on govt. The communists have always realized this and that is why they have worked so hard to break down traditional 'bourgeois' institutions, like marriage and religion, so that they can be replaced with govt institutions.