Posted on 05/28/2002 4:07:09 PM PDT by Dave S
You are a lost cause Alan(just like most Lp'ers). In your reply #63 you were complaining about Perot spending his own money to further his political campaign.
Sheesh sometimes you all(Lp'ers) sound more strident than McCain. You all reveal your motives with your posts.
Nuff stated.
So, prostitution is a " victimless " crime, is it ? What about the girls and women who are forced into it ? What about the whores who use it as a way towards theft ; or worse ? What about the streewalkers who help to ruin a neighborhood ? As to " fraud "... what about the he/ shes , who pretend to be female ?
Finding it difficult to even bother to try to stand up for the LP's position on being Dem helpers, are you ? LOL
I'm disgusted!
It is just as illegal to sell it on the street. Tougher law enforcement at least forces it off the street.
"Drunk stoned men looking for sex harass and come after innocent women..."
...and should be arrested and imprisoned for assault and maybe even attempted rape.
Even casual harassment, not rising to the level of assault, is enough to persuade people to avoid blighted areas.
Unless somebody has been coercively forced to participate in prostitution your "pimp slavemasters" argument is irrelevant. If somebody voluntarily subjects themselves to that kind of lifestyle then I'm afraid you have no cause to interfere.
Theoretical distinctions between coercive and voluntary don't apply so cleanly to vices like prostitution.
As for children, anyone having sex with children should be brought up on rape and molestation charges and put in prison.
Sure. Prevention is even better.
BTW, welcome to FR.
Thanks.
Not complaining. Making an observation.
Listen, why don't you run along and play now so the grown-ups can talk.
The crime is the forced participation and not the prostitution itself.
What about the streewalkers who help to ruin a neighborhood ?
If they're on private property without consent then they've committed tresspass.
As to " fraud "... what about the he/ shes , who pretend to be female ?
You tell me. What about it?
...Finding it difficult to even bother to try to stand up for the LP's position on being Dem helpers...
Up until this point I haven't been challenged on that one. But, since you brought it up it really makes no difference to me if R's or D's win. They're both taking us in the wrong direction.
A moment ago you expressed your concern that prostitution..., "brings neighborhoods down and drives good people away. Drunk stoned men looking for sex harass and come after innocent women while addict hookers pester men."
This occurs because the criminalization of prostitution has created a criminal black-market which has nowhere to go but the streets. It belongs indoors. I realize that it is also illegal on the streets but exactly how much success do you think somebody would have opening a brothel or advertising in the phonebook while it's illegal?
Even casual harassment, not rising to the level of assault, is enough to persuade people to avoid blighted areas.
Well, I'm afraid there isn't much that can be done to completely eliminate casual harrassment wether it's from a street vendor, pedestrian, beggar, somebody passing out flyers, petition worker, city employee, or somebody else.
Theoretical distinctions between coercive and voluntary don't apply so cleanly to vices like prostitution.
Either somebody voluntarily participates in something or they are forced/defrauded into participating. There's nothing theoretical about it. One is a crime. The other is not.
Prevention is even better.
It depends on what the prevention is. Surely you wouldn't want to prevent movie-goers from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater by taping their mouths shut when they buy a ticket. Nor would you want to prevent cavities by forcing people to display their teeth to government oral hygiene inspectors to make sure they're brushing.
That kind of prevention is called prior-restraint which is incompatible with freedom.
Adultery used to be a crime, dear. Anyone who wants to go back to the state of the nation, at the time of its inception, should also , then, logically want to reinsert that law as well. : - )
I agree that prosties should not sell their wares on the street, any more than I believe porn mags should be hustled there.
Having said that, Nevada has some counties that have legal prostitution, and I'll bet the "quality of life" and divorce rates are no worse than your average American county.
As to having to go back to the state of the nation at its inception, my best friend would respectfully disagree - for he has an acute aversion to picking cotton without remuneration.
Thank you for admitting that you don't care a whit, if Dems get to run everything . That honesty isn't as comendable as you wanted it to be however. LOL Sooooooooo , Having Clinton as president, was no worse or better,for you, than having Reagan in office. As long as the president and all high elected officals aren't Libertaraians, it doesn't matter at all to you which party they belong to, nor what they stand for. Very enlightening admission. : - )
You are quite a good example of political niavete and DOG IN THE MANGER politics. Add to that , that you know even less about crime, what actually ( unlike Libertarian UTOPIANISM ) works and doesn't work to stop it, and basic human nature, and it is little wonder that your posts are simply robotic repitions of preprogramed Libertarian rhetorical propaganda; absent of common sense, thought, and intellect. Ya know what ? Socialism looks good on paper too. LOL
Your extrapolation is wrong.
...your posts are simply robotic repitions of preprogramed Libertarian rhetorical propaganda...
My views are my own which I've formed after hundreds of hours of reading and conversing with others. While they may mimic those of the LP they are no less valid because of it. I vote Libertarian because Libertarian candidates hold the same views as myself.
The rest of your post is simply a personal attack againt me -- ridiculing my style and such. It refutes nothing I've said and presents no case one way or another.
As for "non-violent drug offenders?" Non-violent perhaps. But that does not mean their behavior is cost free. Burglary, larceny, car theft, theft of CD receivers, wheels,etc. All ads up. In the hundreds of millions of dollars. Much of it to support their drug habits. Cocaine/Meth,Crack, etc. very expensive. I too would be homeless if I had to spend thousands a month to support my drug habit. Consequently, many turn to drug dealing, theft, prostitution,etc. Drugs are hardly "victimless."
I'll agree that many NON-violent offenders do not merit incarceration, tax offenders come to mind. Pot farmers with 6 plants? Hardly merit concern. Efforts should be focused on VIOLENT offenders. 70% of cops are killed by people who cannot legally possess firearms in the first place, i.e. felons. They are everywhere!
But that's exactly what Buchanan tried to do in '92 and '96.
After he beat 'Boner' Bob Dole in New Hampshire in '96, the Republican establishment attacked him (and us) in the most vile of ways.
I'll never forgive Pat for remaining with the R's in '96 and I haven't voted Republican since.
Considering this, your lofty statement about fighting within the party is just so much political garbage....
And this is coming from a former NYPD 'narc'...
Then you're a Gore voter, IMHO. You and the (big-L) Libertarians.
Burglary, larceny, car theft, etc., are crimes in which there is a perpetrator and victim. They should be prosecuted. If they are a threat to others, and have an inclination toward violence and mischief, then wether or not they were intoxicated is irrelevant. Not everyone who intoxicates himself is a threat to others.
Drugs are hardly "victimless."
If there is no unwilling party which has sustained damages then there is no victim. Thus, no crime.
I too would be homeless if I had to spend thousands a month to support my drug habit.
The consequences would be yours alone to bear.
People on drugs like meth,crack,etc. oft times cannot control their behavior. They (in most cases) do not mean to claw themselves. They do mean to prostitute themselves. They do not mean to break into homes,etc. Rather, they are COMPELLED to do so by the intensity of these drugs. The stuff out there nowadays is not "60s reefer." Far more deadly to those who use it, and those around them.
In StCharles,MO yesterday a third suspect was bound over for trial for the drug-related murder of a disabled woman. The disabled woman's former roomate went to her apartment with two others to borrow money to buy crack. Instead they killed her and robbed her. Happens all the time. Again, did they "mean" to do it? Or were they compelled by the need these drugs force upon people?
Few Libertarians have been present during a "child removal" from Family Services. Few have seen kids screaming and clinging to their worthless, drug addicted parents. Even fewer Libertarians have ever been in the "Big House." Wasted lives. Wasted resources. Yet, for some addicts, the only place they can "function."
As for homelessness? You state the Libertarian position of "the consequnces are yours alone." Again, not reality. Churches, helping organizations (Sallys, Red Cross,etc) rose to meet the demands of the indigent, regardless of etiology of their plight. It simply is not reality (in America) to see mass numbers of people living in the woods or on the streets with inadequate food, medical care, etc. as happened during the Great Depression.
It is fine for Libertarians to say "they brought it on themselves, so screw 'em!" But that isn't and doubtful will ever be the way things are done. Not in America. People such as the above, when left in an unattended condition can breed diseases such as pneumonia,TB. Airborne illnesses know no boundaries. "Victimless?" Hardly.
IMHO, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
I never voted for Gore and I never would.
And again, I tried to stand and fight it out in the Republican party, but was rejected when we won in NH....
My ideas are based on common sense. If there is no unwilling party which has sustained harm from another then there can be no crime.
"It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another." - Lysander Spooner, Vices are not Crimes, 1875
You obviously have had little exposure to druggies and/or the criminal justice system.
Your assessment of my exposure really has no bearing on the discussion.
The [murdered] disabled woman's former roomate went to her apartment with two others to borrow money to buy crack. Instead they killed her and robbed her. Happens all the time. Again, did they "mean" to do it?
Well, I seriously doubt they killed her in self-defense. Wether it was murder or manslaughter is up to a jury to decide.
Few Libertarians have been present during a "child removal" from Family Services. Few have seen kids screaming and clinging to their worthless, drug addicted parents. Even fewer Libertarians have ever been in the "Big House." Wasted lives. Wasted resources. Yet, for some addicts, the only place they can "function."
Do you support alcohol prohibition? Some parents are alcoholics. Some parents are abusive and just all around bad parents even without drugs or alcohol. Some parents don't brush their childrens' teeth or change their diapers.
If by "Big House" you mean prison I don't believe drug addicts belong there. Neither do alcoholics or gluttons.
You state the Libertarian position of "the consequnces are yours alone." Again, not reality.
It is immoral for the state to coercively force the redistribution of wealth for "noble" causes. It is by individual choice that people decide to breed children that they cannot feed, clothe, house, and educate. It is by individual choice that people decide to intoxicate themselves or gamble their money away on lottery tickets. But, because some make irresponsible choices in life just not morally justify forcing others to lend assistance, financial or otherwise. Help rendered must be given voluntarily or it is theft.
It is fine for Libertarians to say "they brought it on themselves, so screw 'em!"
That isn't what Libertarians say.
But that isn't and doubtful will ever be the way things are done. Not in America.
This isn't an argument.
The LP can only siphon off GOP votes if the GOP betrays its small govt mandate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.