Prostitution Roll Call

[Gabu]

Can you define rights without a moral code?

An opposition to coercion is sufficient to establish all fundamental rights.

Just to play devil's advocate, since I'm interested...

What reason is there to hold a fundamental belief in the opposion to coercion without a moral code?

[opebo]

There's nothing wrong with prostitution.  If I buy a girl a lobster dinner, why shouldn't she put out?  Oh, you only meant the honest kind of prostitution.

Hah, well said old Ford, and exactly my feeling as well.  However, the two worst things about the socially acceptable kinds of prostitition are 1) you might get ripped off and get nothing, and 2) you end up having sex on a full stomach - and you know the old saying 'p***y is always better on an empty stomach'.  There are few aphorisms I have found to be more accurate.

In any case, I can't imagine why anyone cares whether others buy or sell sex.  Of course this private behaviour needs no attention from the State.

I would also point out that 'pimps' are actually a great rarity, as the vast majority of women who sell sex do so on their own initiative.  If there is any 'pimp' in the case of most women it is poverty - so one might say that the owning class is their pimp.  If we had a generous welfare state, we could feel confident that those who went into the profession did so not out of necessity, but for extra money, or even in those rare cases for fun.

[opebo]

Never thought that a political discussion in the AF would be so far removed from reality as this one, but here goes:

Absolutely opposed, for public health and criminal concerns.

The amount of money that the government could make on "taxing" prostitution (f*ing idiotic to think that a prostitute will be willing to take  out 20% income tax on her trick; don't be stupid, people!) would be more than wasted on the policing and medication of the clients.

You people who think legalization would increase sexual transmitted diseases are being completely unrealistic. 

[Emsworth]

What reason is there to hold a fundamental belief in the opposion to coercion without a moral code?

There is no reason to hold any belief whatsoever. Even with a "moral code," there is no reason to hold any particular belief; I think that all beliefs are arbitrary.

But I would argue that opposition to coercion is a rational and reasonable principle on which to base government. It is just like the principle that the federal government should obey the Constitution: there is no fundamental "reason" for this belief, but it is still rational and reasonable.

[Schmitz in 1972]

What reason is there to hold a fundamental belief in the opposion to coercion without a moral code?

There is no reason to hold any belief whatsoever. Even with a "moral code," there is no reason to hold any particular belief; I think that all beliefs are arbitrary.

But I would argue that opposition to coercion is a rational and reasonable principle on which to base government. It is just like the principle that the federal government should obey the Constitution: there is no fundamental "reason" for this belief, but it is still rational and reasonable.

Very well. But how exactly would a moral code be not also "rational and reasonable"?

[Blue Rectangle]

What reason is there to hold a fundamental belief in the opposion to coercion without a moral code?

There is no reason to hold any belief whatsoever. Even with a "moral code," there is no reason to hold any particular belief; I think that all beliefs are arbitrary.

But I would argue that opposition to coercion is a rational and reasonable principle on which to base government. It is just like the principle that the federal government should obey the Constitution: there is no fundamental "reason" for this belief, but it is still rational and reasonable.

Very well. But how exactly would a moral code be not also "rational and reasonable"?

I would say that it is rational and reasonable to believe that prostitution is naturally exploitive and coercive--similar to slavery.

[Bono]

What reason is there to hold a fundamental belief in the opposion to coercion without a moral code?

There is no reason to hold any belief whatsoever. Even with a "moral code," there is no reason to hold any particular belief; I think that all beliefs are arbitrary.

But I would argue that opposition to coercion is a rational and reasonable principle on which to base government. It is just like the principle that the federal government should obey the Constitution: there is no fundamental "reason" for this belief, but it is still rational and reasonable.

How is oposition to coherciaon a good principle to base government on, when government is cohercion?

[Alcon]

I favour the legalisation of prostitution.  I do not think the government should control what a woman does with her own body when it is not affecting another person.

That having been said, am I the only one who finds it odd that the creation of pornographic films is legal, but not prostitution?  In one case, two people are being paid to have sex; in the other, one person pays the other to have sex with them.

I find that a lot of anti-prostitution arguments also work as anti-creation of pornography arguments.  But I've never heard anyone suggest banning all pornography (besides a few far, far right-wingers and radical feminists).

Would you make streetwalking illegal?

No, assuming no other laws are being broken.

Does anyone have any comment about the pornography vs. prostitution thing?  Isn't pornography just prostitution in the third person tense?

[Emsworth]

But how exactly would a moral code be not also "rational and reasonable"?

Hmm, I don't claim that there is any objective truth to my principles. I just personally, even subjectively feel that an opposition to coercion is a good principle, just as someone else might feel that a particular moral code is a good principle.

How is oposition to coherciaon a good principle to base government on, when government is cohercion?

There cannot be complete freedom from coercion. If there were no government, the rights to life, liberty, and property would be insecure from the coercion of others. Thus, the people give up some of their freedom in order to be free of a greater coercion.

[nclib]

Legalize and regulate.

[Max Power]

... because the government has no right to ban it.

Whyever not?

Why should it? The government lacks any authority whatsoever on banning consensual sex between adults; while it does have a right to regulate commerce, that doesn't mean it can prevent someone from just paying money to his/her sex partner. And any regulation at all should be at the lowest level possible - state or county or even municipal level.

^^^^^