Prostitution means that single men who would otherwise not get laid as much (if at all) can have sex when they like. It also provides a much higher income for women than other jobs. It's a fun profession for a nymphomaniac. Couples can spice up their love life by hiring a hooker for a threesome or other activities. Finally, men who would otherwise have affairs with mistresses, then fall in love with them and break up their family, can instead use a prostitute to get their sexual kicks. Given that falling for a prostitute is unlikely, this means that prostitution helps keep families together and prevents kids from suffering broken homes. I used to live on a street that had several strip joints and knocking shops. Didn't bother me, since I was in an apartment and nothing was visible from the street. Also, since some of them were free (they put on strip shows so you would turn up and buy drinks), it was quite handy if I ever wanted to watch some attractive young women get their kit off. Would have been no problem for kids, since they wouldn't have seen it. Outside the USA, many countries have legalized prostitution and don't suffer any particular societal breakdown. Most have far lower levels of violent and sexual crime, too. In the UK it is allowed in private (streetwalking is illegal). In many European countries there are specific red light areas where you can literally go "window-shopping" as the women are on public display. Again, if you don't like it, it's all in one place so you can just choose not to go there. Far from being crime-ridden dumps, these areas are often tourist attractions, and you see old ladies, couples and kids pointing and laughing about it all. Not everywhere is as sexually repressed as America.
My understanding of Libertarianism is 1) smaller government, 2) less centralized government and 3) a general "pro-choice" position on all issues where noone is hurt and/or the government is "meddling". Now I agree that 200+ years ago, #1 and #2 were absolutely the thinking of the founding fathers and they would roll over in the graves and come back for another Tea Party if they saw our current federal behemoth. But I cannot agree with what you said about #3. Every State had a state "religion" - denomination would be a better word - and virtually every state had many laws that modern liberarians would find meddlesome: sodomy laws, no alchohol on Sunday laws, prostitution laws, etc., etc. Am I missing your point?
Tikipoki - you claim to go for self-interest and survival, due to the laws of nature, the fact that it is instinctive behaviour. But isn't the urge to be "moral", to sacrifice one's own interests to some extent in order to help members of one's group, also a natural animal instinct? Therefore I would like to know why you follow one animal instinct and not the other. What makes it more rational or natural to follow the instinct of self-interest but not the instinct of morality, when both are natural? Do you simply not feel any instinct towards morality, or is there some other reason?
Here's where we disagree on this issue: 1. If kids see moms and/or dads with different partners that then disappear they can develop bonding and other psychological issues. 2. Kids need a stable home life. I think you are being very theoretical here. A family where the husband is out with prostitutes or they're inviting her in has about nil chance of survival imo. 3. Any psychologist will tell you that sexual addiction is a real issue and a real problem for (primarily) males. Strip joints and prostitutes are the coke and meth of sex addicts. Having those in your neighborhood is going to injure a certain amount of families because of it. 4. The children of prostitutes are almost for sure, unless she is very, very careful, going to have problems with #1. 5. I don't know any woman that would be relieved that her husband went to a prostitute instead of a mistress! In a large percentage of cases, this would lead to a fractured or broken relationship. See you're ignoring (in my opinion) a little detail about human nature: most people want to satisy their spouse and are injured (usually deeply injured) to find the other party has been with another individual. How many wives are going to say, "Great honey! Glad you were with that prostitute. I though maybe you had an affair!" And that's right before the toaster nails you between the eyes... In short, prostitution, etc. will injure a much greater # of families than it could ever help (and of course I dont' agree that it would really help) according to you arguments above. I've seen Amsterdam's Red Light district. And noone knows how many marriages have been broken up cuzz a wife found out her loving hubby was down there. If 100 families have been broken up because of that and 50 had children, then I say it was a tragic mistake. The emotional pain that those kids will go through is not worth the few minutes of pleasure for even 100,000 young studs...
Well there are two main things I disagree on. First is that "community laws" can only be imposed on land the community group actually owns, otherwise this is unfair to the people who did not agree to join the community. Secondly, I think the argument that something "harms society" cannot just be assumed. When someone is charged with a crime, there is a presumption of innocence. You cannot always just find someone guilty of harming society, because they did action X - it has to be proven, based on the circumstances involved, that their specific actions were harmful. For example, a recreational drug user may not develop an addiction, or may be able to control their behaviour; whilst an alcoholic may end up being destructive and destroying his family, due entirely to his addiction. The first person is most likely not guilty of harming society, the second is. A prosecution should only succeed in the case where harm is proven. Basically, a lot of these "morality" laws are making a presumption of guilt, and ignoring the duty to provide a burden of proof before punishing people.
I agree with the underlying principle that we don't want to capriciously or unnecessarily incarcerate people. But, that said, our legal system is built on the idea of "potential harm" in many important cases. Here's what I mean: 1. In the case of drunk driving, I think that the person should be incarcerated even if he did not harm someone. The potential was there regardless. Just cuzz he got "lucky" and didn't annhiliate someone off of planet earth doesn't mean he should get off. 2. I don't think you can use coke and meth "recreationally". Or let me put it this way: it's tough to use recreationally and I don't think the courts should mess with having to prove whether or not you were recreational or not. 3. Take the case of speeding: you can't really prove "harm" even at criminal levels. Noone was hurt - there was just the potential.
Cutten, for all I know, no animal would kill itself out of free will for another animal, and wont sacrifice anything unless they benefit from it themselves (like keeping the wolfpack big so they have more power). Then I will explain what I dont like about 'morals'; they are different all around the world, and since they are different per culture, it would be safe to assume that morals are taught to people, in contrast to instinct, which you own from birth. Again; if I can snort coke in front of a police officer here in Amsterdam, but you get hung in singapore when you carry in some Hasj, then obviously, they have different morals regarding the matter. If you kill someone in Holland, you get 10-15 years, if you kill someone in the US, chances are you will never be free again, if you kill your wife and claim she cheated in Afghanistan, you are a hero. So where are these born-in morals? I dont see them, I only see morals that are put upon people by society, and since they can be put on anyway, I cho( o)se to have the morals that fit my cause best, and those happen to be NOT the ones that are broadly advocated here. cheers! Tiki
Would you want a cement factory next door, a brass band on the other side, an airport across the street and a lighthouse behind you? Probably not, right? Are you a hypocrite for saying it's okay for those things to exist in your city even though you don't want them next door to you?