| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/21/2009 6:05:19 PM |
I think bluenoses have the right to live in the kind of town, county, or state they want, if they're the majority.
If consenting adults play behind closed doors, how will the bluenoses even know about it unless they're sticking their noses in where they don't belong? | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/21/2009 8:01:42 PM |
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Prostitution should be legal, safe, sane, consentual, taxed, monitored and healthy. FFS people, no one cares what others do with their own bodies. Consentual is the operative word here. Animals don't consent, children don't consent, you get the gist.
Thanks 'Allthings' for getting the thread back on track. ~  .....I'm with you on the legalization issue. Why is it, that people think it is necessary to pry into other people's private lives and insure they are not exposed to (what they consider to be), immoral temptation? I thought we lived in a 'Free Country' ! Prostitution, as you have defined above, is certainly not infringing upon anyone's rights ! ~  | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/22/2009 7:26:28 AM | | If it's legal, the cost will skyrocket becuase of taxing, testing requirements and insurance. Go ahead and check out the costs at the Bunny Ranch. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/22/2009 7:54:20 AM |
taxing
See? That's all we need to get us out of this economic mess Amerika is in!
More Hookers = More Roads | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/22/2009 8:25:08 AM | | Yep. We who disapprove of certain activities that don't actually violate anyone's rights--who believe that those activities have negative ramifications that amount to hidden costs--have every right to assess the participants in those activities for those costs. If prostitution is one of those activities and it costs a certain amount to contain the spread of STDs by that route, the users of those services should pay them. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 482 | |
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/22/2009 8:31:16 AM |
If it's legal, the cost will skyrocket becuase of taxing, testing requirements and insurance.
no the cost will skyrocket because there will be greater demand. simple free market economics at work. sure would have a positive affect on the unemployment situation huh? put's a whole new spin on the term "stimulate the economy". | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/22/2009 8:34:49 AM | Taxing vices and earning money from vices is a national passtime.
Churches cater to the gambling addicts in their towns with bingo nights.
Charities make money off of alcoholics with wine tastings.
Nevada didn't have sales tax on its citizens for a long time because the gambling taxes pay everything.
We tax alcohol and cigarettes much higher than other things.
On the one hand, not legalizing avoids giving implied social approval (the idea that if it is legal it is ok to do). Legalizing it subjects it to taxation.
So, is the purpose of laws to communicate behaviors the majority find self-destructive and by reprecussion if it is self-destructive it is destructive to society? Do we want to communicate that prostituting is socially offensive behavior? If it is legal, how do we communicate that?
We are not islands ... we are part of the whole of society. What one person does is not isolated from impact on the society as a whole.
I grew up with a father who claimed that 'you cannot legislate morality' What I learned was that you could legislate immorality. When by law we say that a behavior is legal and therefore socially acceptable we are legislating immorality.
| |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/22/2009 8:43:15 AM | We have freedom of association. That means we also have the freedom to shun those who participate in behavior that we find immoral. But the laws are not about what we approve of. They are about protecting our rights. The only basis for making something illegal is if it violates someone's rights--either directly or indirectly.
That churches and governments exploit peoples' weaknesses is immoral. Taxing vices because we can is not good policy. Taxing vices to cover the projected costs of the loss of productivity and other economic harms associated with a self-damaging activity is legitimate--otherwise the weak would be exploiting the rest of us. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/22/2009 8:46:41 AM | | Ok, what I believe is that you can legisate morality but you cannot control all behavior. Prostitution, drugs and illegal immigration all prove that. From a purely economic POV, it makes more sense to make it all legal...oh wait, there already is a way to immigrate legally...uh, oh well, back to the drawing board. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 486 | |
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/22/2009 9:07:26 AM | So, is the purpose of laws to communicate behaviors the majority find self-destructive and by reprecussion if it is self-destructive it is destructive to society?
definately not. if the majority dictated the law the south would still be segregated and christians would be imposing their standard of behavior on all of us. which even they cannot agree on. we have a representative republic so that the majority does not dictate morals. gays would be outlawed in this country if such was not the case. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 487 | |
| |
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/22/2009 3:08:56 PM |
not in this country you can't.
Sure you can. There's no legal prostitution, or gay marriage here in California.
Can, should and effective are all three entirely different words. Please use them appropriately. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/22/2009 4:50:41 PM |
Sure you can. There's no legal prostitution, or gay marriage here in California.
Exactly. That is why we have an independent judiciary whose charge is to examine the rational basis of our laws to see if they're consistent with the rights we are all guaranteed under the Constitution. So, we _can_ legislate morality, but only until the judges figure out that there's no Constitutional basis for such laws. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/22/2009 5:37:31 PM |
JBOGIE said: hmmm. one of us is navigating off course. lol. to be clear, i'm damn near dead center located in the lower RIGHT quadrant in it's upper left corner. if you're a third of an inch left of me you're in the lower LEFT quadrant.
AceofSpace said: My bad. I misread you.
Well there ya go. Yet another liberal who thinks he’s closer to the center or the right than he actually is…
(Ace… Don’t hate the messenger…)
| |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/22/2009 7:27:55 PM | Fine.
What, you think I don't know where I stand? Pfft!
I just wasn't clear where he stood.
It was a good try though, doc (i.e., MD). | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/23/2009 2:20:02 PM |
So, we _can_ legislate morality, but only until the judges figure out that there's no Constitutional basis for such laws.
Okay...
... here in reality land - there's still tuns of laws on the books legislating morality. And, I don't see them going away anytime soon. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/23/2009 2:40:26 PM |
So, we _can_ legislate morality, but only until the judges figure out that there's no Constitutional basis for such laws.
Right! Courts NEVER uphold Constitutionally-baseless laws in this country. Yah...
Question: If prostitution were allowed by a new federal mandate, which congress member should we name the act after?
And knowing America, there would be chains of convenience store/fast food type brothels popping up, like Dunkin Yonuts. I'm so full of anticipation already, I'm visiting In and Out tonight. | |
|
| |
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/23/2009 4:11:17 PM |
here's still tuns of laws on the books legislating morality. And, I don't see them going away anytime soon.]/quote]
Exactly.
"The law is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed." Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 196 (1986). | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/23/2009 6:53:20 PM |
"The law is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed." Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 196 (1986).
I hate to disagree with the esteemed judge, but I do. Constitutional laws are based on the idea of individual rights. Laws based on morality are, by definition, arbitrary. It's OK by me if the courts are busy pruning out all that nonsense. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:44:30 AM | I don't think any of the Justices disagreed with that--it's pretty obvious most laws express moral convictions. The Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments both recognize the government's authority to deprive people of their liberty, property, or even their life. They just require due process for the person being deprived. That has always meant adequate notice and an adequate hearing.
Think of state murder statutes. They're all based on morality--in particular, the moral conviction of most people in each state that murder is wrong. You're saying all those laws are arbitrary by definition. If so, they're not valid, and no state can make murder a crime. In fact, you're saying *no* state law can make *any* act a crime, because criminal laws represent moral judgments about behavior.
What you're doing is reading the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments so broadly you make them exceptions that swallow the law. You're going way beyond claiming that the 14th Amendment limits the police powers of state and local governments. You're denying that those governments even have any such powers. But if they don't, they can't function at all--the police power *means* the inherent powers state and local governments need to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
No one's due *that* much process under our Constitution. And do we really want the Supreme Court to start invalidating law after law because the Justices believe the whole purpose of the law is unfair? Not much reason to have state legislatures or Congress any more, if the will of the majority no longer counts.
You seem to ignore the fact that unlike the other rights you claim exist, voting is a *real* fundamental right. But it means very little if the representatives of the voters can no longer make criminal laws. And that's just the trouble with the substantive due process you're calling for--it runs roughshod over the balance of powers.
Here's my counter. If courts are going to strike down every state law that reflect a moral judgment (meaning all criminal law, and probably more) let Congress enact a law removing the jurisdiction of all federal courts to hear any substantive due process challenge to any state criminal law. Who'd hear them then? The state courts? The U.S. Supreme Court? Don't think so. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/24/2009 7:02:14 AM | Think of state murder statutes. They're all based on morality--in particular, the moral conviction of most people in each state that murder is wrong. You're saying all those laws are arbitrary by definition. If so, they're not valid, and no state can make murder a crime. In fact, you're saying *no* state law can make *any* act a crime, because criminal laws represent moral judgments about behavior.
You can do better than this, Match. You know that the basis of laws against murder is a consideration of rights and not preferences. You are correct that it all boils down to due process. Murder is killing someone without due process. It is the deprivation of the individual's right to due process that makes murder a crime and not an enforcement procedure.
And what is the basis for making murder a capital crime--one which for which the state can deprive an individual of the right to life? It is the demonstrated proof beyond reasonable doubt that the individual wrongfully deprived another citizen of that same right--in most cases with the implication that the individual is likely to do it again.
That's why manslaughter is not a capital crime.
You seem to ignore the fact that unlike the other rights you claim exist, voting is a *real* fundamental right. But it means very little if the representatives of the voters can no longer make criminal laws. And that's just the trouble with the substantive due process you're calling for--it runs roughshod over the balance of powers.
Of course representatives can make criminal laws. It is the court's role to protect the rights of unpopular minorities against a tyranny of the majority. There will always be a dynamic tension between the legislature and the judiciary, as there should be. | |
|
| |
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/24/2009 7:32:33 AM |
It is the court's role to protect the rights of unpopular minorities against a tyranny of the majority.
Yes, and no. It depends on who that minority is. Not every unpopular minority qualifies for any special protection. For example, a group of seniors wouldn't have a 14th Amendment due process or equal protection claim against a city for refusing to permit a bingo center next door to City Hall, as long as the refusal served any legitimate government purpose. | |
|
| Should prostitution be legal?
Posted: 9/24/2009 7:44:05 AM |
the basis of laws against murder is a consideration of rights and not preferences.
It's the *government* that can't deprive a person of his right to life, except by due process--not some other person. The basis for state laws against murder is *moral disapproval.* Commandment VI: "You shall not murder." | |
|
Home
login 
