The Other Prostitution Scandal; Why was Eliot Spitzer's lifestyle illegal, anyway?

Reason Magazine ^ | March 13, 2008 | Steve Chapman

[Eric Blair 2084]

I'm not unreasonable. If somebody can explain why consenting adults exchanging sex for money is any of the Gubmint's bidness, I'm willing to listen.

Just spare me the "it's for the chilruns" or "society has decided" or "they are all victims" nonsense.

I've never done it and have no interest in doing it. This is a philosophical argument.

[Eric Blair 2084]

Bud Light presents:

"REAL MEN OF GENIUS"

...(Real men of genius)

Today we salute you, Mr. Power Hungry Hypocrite Leftist Authoritarian

...(Mr. Power Hungry Hypocrite Leftist Authoritarian)

In your quest for higher political office and power you prosecuted everyone and ruined people in order to make a name for yourself...

...(You're an f'ing steamroller!)

Investment banks, research analysts, insurance companies, Native American tobacco retailers, $20 street hookers, jaywalkers, ticket scalpers, people who rip tags off mattresses, your mother

...(You're all going to jail)

The only person within a 500 mile radius you forgot to prosecute was yourself

...(Somebody convene a Grand Jury)

Other funny looking annoying rich men have to spend millions buying beautiful women condos, furs, BMW's, diamonds or proposing marriage in exchange for sex

...(where is the M3 convertible?)

You managed to get beautiful women by paying a miserly $80,000 for prostitutes over 10 years and risking criminal prosecution and public shame

...(Worth every penny)

Sure all pigs are created equal...but some pigs are more equal than others.

...(You're a special piece of pork!)

So crack open an ice cold Bud Light, oh $5,500 per hour call girl Governor...because the only people who were screwed here were the tax paying citizens

...(Mr. Power Hungry Hypocrite Leftist Authoritarian)

Bud Light beer. Anheuser-Busch, St. Louis, Missouri.

[Eric Blair 2084]

ping

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

BTW, has Spitzer actually resigned? I know he said that he would. But, has he flown the coop?

[wideawake]

It is a violation of justice to use other human beings as a means to an end.

[Texas Eagle]

What I don't understand is why it was illegal.

Because it is against the law. One could think of hundreds (if not thousands) of activities that one doesn't understand why said activities are illegal.

The only answer is because those activities were deemed to be illegal by people charged with the authority to do so.

Just because you don't understand why something is illegal doesn't give you special dispensation to violate the law.

Spitzer couldn't understand why illegals couldn't have driver's licenses so he sought to change the law.

If he couldn't understand why prostitution was against the law he should've actively sought to change the law.

[RepublitarianRoger2]

All laws are based on morals. I know you didn’t want any “society has decided nonsense,” but it’s not nonsense, a society’s moral values are the basis of all laws. Our society considers prostitution to be a repudiation of its moral standards, so it is illegal. I don’t think I have to go into WHY a society would consider prostitution to go against its moral standards; that should be easy to suss out, given our Judeo-Christian heritage, to name one factor.

[Eric Blair 2084]

He’s done. Paterson was sworn in on Monday. The guy admitted that he had an affair with Helen Thomas and Rosie O’Donnell.

He must be blind or something.

[Eric Blair 2084]

It is a violation of justice to use other human beings as a means to an end.

OK. Than we should all be in jail. Every citizen. But who would guard us if we were all incarcerated?

[Eric Blair 2084]

Because it is against the law.

The "law" is always right? The same law that allows the slaughter of unborn children? You have way too much respect for authority. This is not what the founding fathers had in mind. Otherwise they would have banned the plentiful brothels in Concord and Boston.

[wideawake]

OK. Than we should all be in jail.

Your conclusion does not follow from my major premise - which is likely why you neglected to supply a minor one. So much for your vaunted philosophical discussion.

[patch789]

Spitzer (allegedly) arranged for, a sex worker to cross
state lines.

Immoral or not,
Such an act is illegal.

[traviskicks]

Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[Gondring]

>Your conclusion does not follow from my major premise - which is likely why you neglected to supply a minor one. So much for your vaunted philosophical discussion.

Hope you don't mind me doing the honors (albeit semi-rigorously)...

It is a violation of justice to use other human beings as a means to an end.

All citizens use other human beings as a means to an end.

Therefore, all citizens are violators of justice.

Now, of course, you can dispute an argument that violators of justice should be in jail...

[secretagent]

If he couldn't understand why prostitution was against the law he should've actively sought to change the law.

Spitzer supported the prosecution of customers of prostitutes. Perhaps, in his search for public redemption, he will request that the authorities prosecute him.

[RatsDawg]

“If somebody can explain why consenting adults exchanging sex for money is any of the Gubmint’s bidness, I’m willing to listen.”

The all mighty $.

If its legal the government can’t make money off busting the people who do it. I am sure its a big business making people pay fines.

[Gondring]

It doesn't have to be a sex worker. Taking your girlfriend across state lines can get you charged, too.

See Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917).

Disclaimer...I am not a lawyer and this ain't legal advice.

[Gondring]

Perhaps, in his search for public redemption, he will request that the authorities prosecute him.

That is exactly what it would take to show he is truly a man of honor.

[secretagent]

It is a violation of justice to use other human beings as a means to an end.

Is it a violation of justice to date a woman, not for love, but with the expectation of sexual favors in exchange for expensive dinners and gifts? If so, is it the kind of injustice that merits legislation criminalizing it?

Also, is it an injustice rising to a level meriting criminalization, to severely berate someone in a search for a feeling of superiority?

[M203M4]

It is a vast oversimplification for most people against drug use, prostitution, etc, but some folks are of the mind that everything that is immoral (generally according to tradition, and/or a religious standard) should be illegal.

My impression is that most people against these activities are against them because of the activities they are in turn associated with - for example, the idea that prostitution carries with it related baggage which is injurious to innocent, passive parties.

I have two mutually compatible takes on the issue. First is federalism - the federal government should play no role. The current model where the legality of prostitution is decided at the state-level is a good model. For one, it is "self-correcting". If one state implements a policy bearing overwhelmingly poor consequences, then the flight of people and capital will force the law to be changed even if the voters do not. Second, it is constitutional (unless one subscribes to one of those liberal interpretations of the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause (but I mean, with such an interpretation, we could junk the constitution and the entire legal system, and just use the "necessary and proper" rule of thumb for every question).

My second angle regards the local (state level or lower) situation. Stating purely how I would vote (using my ballot, my dollars, and my feet) for where I live, I would prefer if the associated social behaviors influencing innocent bystanders were the focus of the legal system. I recognize that 'A' (immoral, but not harmful to me or other third parties) may in fact lead to 'B' (harmful to me or other third parties), but am adamant that a moral law is one which focuses on 'B'. For example, fighting B indirectly by fighting A means implementing gun control to fight murder, bank robbery, etc.

I sort of depart from many libertarians on the following point. I support LOCAL laws (below the state level) criminalizing "nuisance" behavior in public where 'harm' even if slight, can be measured. That would include prostitute solicitation anywhere on public property, shooting up heroin in public, doing coke, smoking MJ (or even smoking Tobacco or drinking alcohol if that is what is supported), public lewdness (by local standards), etc. If someone wants to partake in any of these activities in private (including private establishments like restaurants), I'm fine with that. Sex clubs, whore houses, whatever - just keep the dirt locked inside.

Now, don't mistake my rationale. I do not think that the government can change human nature. What varying LOCAL laws can do, however, is induce behavioral segregation. Same goes for tax laws. Drug users with drug users (once a critical mass have congregated). You catch my drift? That is the beauty of distributing rather than concentrating government power - society will ALWAYS produce garbage, and this is a way of providing for landfills. Truly toxic waste in some dumps, more mild stuff in others, and a of course smattering of biodegradable litter everywhere.

Left-wingers of course hate this model, because they desire "equality" across all length-scales. Some likely realize that federalism and more local extensions of it will leave them and their policies with drugs, bums, $30 hookers, gangs, criminals, welfare queens, and other parasites. Meanwhile, employment will go someplace where the greenhouse gas footprint of every fart does not need to be offset, where taxes are not 45% overall to pay for "progressive" social programs, where murderers and rapists are not coddled and forgiven, and so on.