Replies

He might steal from you but he didn't.

... and a murderer might have murdered you, but he didn't. If someone harms another, he is a threat to all and should be restrained or forced to make good.

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.

You are mistaken, the law already recognizes different levels of crime for different levels of theft: larceny, grand larceny for example.

But in our case, Eliot was married. He signed a contract with his wife and broke it.

Breach of contract is a civil matter, not a criminal matter - unless fraud can be proved. Silda stands to gain hundreds of millions for her husband's breach if she chooses, and this without any criminal charges.

And most women do care a great deal if their husband breaks the contract.

I'm sure they do, which is why it's grounds for divorce on terms favorable to the wife almost everywhere.

And unlike other cases of adultery, it is possible for the govt to enforce because there is a money trail.

There are DNA trails and other such in many other cases (stains on blue dresses) too.

(also in this case, there is the issue of using public funds)

If that can be proved, I concur that he should go to the slammer immediately. But not because he spent it on a prostitute, but because he is corrupt. You don't need laws against prostitution to nail a corrupt politician, although I will concede it sure helped in this case.

His wife certainly wasn't willing.

First, you don't know this. They might very well have had a relationship of convenience or power-sharing. Second, that's why she stands to gain so much in divorce court if she chooses. So once again that argument is covered.

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.

Life isn't certain, and is full of risks. You are verging far from the Founder's intentions if you think this should be under the purview of the federal government. Did someone who bought Bear Stearns on Friday for the bargain-basement price of $27 a share know what risks were present? It opened near $3 today. If you think the government has the duty to prohibit all forms of behaviors that bring risks, then you apparently don't want to live in anything like what I could call a free country. Skydiving, dining in restaurants, riding cars or bikes, or going surfing ... all of these things can kill you, let alone take your "dignity" (which incidentally isn't defined in federal law).

In this edge case, I'm saying No, that is an invalid transaction made on false information.

You can't legislate those and preserve freedom, I'm afraid. I wish people like you would stop trying.

In the case of child prostitution you'd probably agree that is also a transaction made on false information.

Sure, they can't give consent because they don't possess it.

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.

Although liberals are starting to act against junk food, and you won't be in much of a position to object if they do, because they're using your argument ... obesity leads to lack of dignity. (They call it "self-esteem" or something.)

well, we can look at some European countries that have no problem with legalizing prostitution and they also have no problem with socialism.

One has no bearing on the other.

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.

I don't think you can pin this on prostitution.

They want govt to provide stability. If we had a culture that promoted strong families, there would be less dependency on govt.

There might be a way for "culture" to promote strong families, but having the government ban prostitution isn't a way to do it, and neither does our government giving huge tax incentives for single women having lots of children do it.

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.

Um, I'm not suggesting that prostitution become a government institution. Rather, that government should not attempt to ban all bad choices from its citizens, in a misguided attempt to legislate into utopia.