Replies

What market for kidnapped teens would there be in a place with decriminalized prostitution?

Wow! I'm impressed that you were so quickly able to apply anti-WOD rhetoric to this situation!

As for a market for kidnapped teens -- it will be there, whether or not prostitution is legal. There are people who would pay a lot to have sex with a pretty, 12 or 13-yo blonde virgin. There's a market for kidnapped children, too.

What you're telling us is this: we have no right to define the conditions under which our communities, or even our own neighborhoods, will operate. You're telling us that we must instead acquiesce to every perversion in the name of "freedom," no matter the cost to ourselves and our community.

This is just another example of how the libertarian mindset is morally corrupt, because it is based on "what I want," and not what is right.

Wow! I'm impressed that you were so quickly able to apply anti-WOD rhetoric to this situation!

It certainly applies because they both arise from the desire to control other's vices, conducted in private.

As for a market for kidnapped teens -- it will be there, whether or not prostitution is legal. There are people who would pay a lot to have sex with a pretty, 12 or 13-yo blonde virgin. There's a market for kidnapped children, too.

The market may still be there, but it will be much reduced if there is a legal outlet that is "almost" as good to most of the potential customers. A black market supporting hundreds of thousands of clients may be able to support a few teen virgins as well, but a legal market supporting 99% of customers will leave little room for a black market supporting only one or two teen virgins - and the latter case will make it easier to distinguish the teen kidnappers from the "regular" whores, making law enforcement efforts to catch the kidnappers easier.

What you're telling us is this: we have no right to define the conditions under which our communities, or even our own neighborhoods, will operate. You're telling us that we must instead acquiesce to every perversion in the name of "freedom," no matter the cost to ourselves and our community.

And what you're telling us is that you should have the right and power to dictate your version of morality onto everyone at government gunpoint, and that anyone who would disagree is immoral, dangerous, and/or defective.

This is just another example of how the libertarian mindset is morally corrupt, because it is based on "what I want," and not what is right.

Hypocrite! You are the one who wishes to dictate laws based on what you want - namely, no prostitution, and you would inflict these on everyone. I don't care for prostitution and wouldn't patronize them, but I wouldn't point a gun at those who would. You believe you alone have the moral authority to dictate what is "right" and force that on others. Whence the presumption?

the libertarian mindset is morally corrupt, because it is based on "what I want," and not what is right.

Bravo! Well said! Bears repeating.

This is just another example of how the libertarian mindset is morally corrupt, because it is based on "what I want," and not what is right.

Excellent!

Someone else knows that Liberty is the right to choose the good. License is the absolute right to choose to do whatever I want.

Libertarians are really Licensetarians. They are for Licentuousness, not Freedom. Ludwig von Mises tome on Socialism has a whole section on sexual "freedom" (and similar nonsense) being part and parcel of marxist socialism.

What you're telling us is this: we have no right to define the conditions under which our communities, or even our own neighborhoods, will operate.

That's what I am telling you. You own yourself and your property, nothing else.

"This is just another example of how the libertarian mindset is morally corrupt, because it is based on "what I want," and not what is right."

You had me right up to here. Actually it is the other way around. Libertarian mindset is based on what is right, ie. (letting people decide for themselves what is best for them as long as it doesn't harm others.)

Your mindset is based on "what I want". What you want is to control other peoples lives. You really should be honest if you want to be taken seriously.

Having said that, I tend to agree that communities ought to be allowed to set certain standards. Prostution is offensive enough to some that they shouldn't have to tolerate it in their community.

If a community decides to allow it however, I think it would be wrong for the State or Federal gov't to interfere. Assuming no coersion, or sex trafficing of course. Kidnapping, blackmail, rape, etc. are already crimes, and people guilty of doing the above in order to force women into prostitution should be locked up.

According to him anti-Prostitution laws are the equivalent of socialism/communism. Is it any wonder that it is impossible to get any logic conclusions out of the liberts when they use logic like that? Their general approach is to destroy the meaning of words then apply them as they like i.e. taxes are robbery thus government a thief. Since neither taxes nor robbery have any meaning after they are done with the words any "conclusion" can be drawn and Al Capone is the same as George Bush. What a world.

I heard an interesting twist on this arguement last week.

It goes like this --- If you believe that G-D created Man (and Woman) and placed them on this planet with free agency, i.e., the right and obligation to choose good over evil, then passing laws prohibiting people from activities which are immoral but which do not harm others is itself immoral, and against G-D's plan. After all, if G-D gave people the right to make decisions about drugs, alcohol, use of tobacco, gambling, unmarried consensual sex, even prostitution, who are you to try to make those choices for them?

This is not to say that those things are good. It is in fact because they are NOT good that you must give people the right to choose the good.

One of the versions of "the fall of Satan" is that G-D had a conference in heaven asking for advice on how to set up the plan of salvation. Jesus said he would go down, become a man, live a perfect life, then be sacrificed in atonement for all those who would choose to be righteous. Satan said he would force people to be good, and thus save every one. G-D chose Jesus' plan. Satan objected, thought he was right and G-D was wrong, and started the war in heaven, which he lost.

When you advocate passing laws which force people to "be good", you are on the side of Satan.

Besides, it doesn't work. Prohibition of alcohol did not work. Prositutes are found in every major city in the US. And as John Stossel said in his special on the "war on drugs", after decades of the drug war, the price of drugs is lower today than when we started, and the quality and availability of drugs today is higher than when we started, and we have lost real liberties in the fight -- drugs are bad, but the war on drugs is worse. The same can be said about the war against prostitution.