Posted on 07/01/2007 12:14:26 PM PDT by wagglebee
“That’s the same thinking that let us kill 50 million babies because one woman said she was raped.”
Please walk me through an exposition of that logic.
“The only real voluntary sex workers in the country are in Hollywood - and even then you can’t tell me that Britney Spears would do what she does without drugs.”
I didn’t realize that Britney was a prostitute. Can you cite a source?
“And the men in this country wonder why they are in disrepute. They let their own daughters become “sex workers”. Tsk.”
Everyone wants license plates, but no one wants their kid to go to jail to make them. Yes it’s hyperbole and more conflation - but parallel to yours.
You still haven’t addressed my points from the previous post:
I don’t believe the numbers.
Illegality in the US is what leads to there being any sex slavery. As another poster said, sunlight is the best disinfectant.
I support ending the War on (some) Drugs for the same reason.
“With legal prostitution, the pimps will be out of business and the street walkers will dissapear - it will be above board.”
Nonsense. They will still be there and the numbers will probably increase to do increased demand. Drug addicts won’t be allowed to be prostitutes in a government regulated industry. Most street hookers are strung out on something. Street hookers will ALWAYS undercut the legal, more expensive and selective prostitutes and as a result get plenty of business. Just look at Vegas. Most guys can’t afford a go at the legal brothels and continue to sit the strip.
“Nonsense. They will still be there and the numbers will probably increase to do increased demand.”
Can you name the economic principle which predicts that demand would rise?
“Drug addicts won’t be allowed to be prostitutes in a government regulated industry. Most street hookers are strung out on something. Street hookers will ALWAYS undercut the legal, more expensive and selective prostitutes and as a result get plenty of business.”
This is a supply/demand issue. I disagree. With it legalized everywhere, the supply of legal prostitutes will be close to the satisfaction of the demand at the point of equalibrium. Government regulation is the only thing that would stand in the way, as it distorts markets. Everything that Von Mises or Hayek wrote on economics applies. More on that...
“Street hookers will ALWAYS undercut the legal, more expensive and selective prostitutes and as a result get plenty of business.”
Teetotalers used this argument against legalizing booze during prohibition - that moonshine would always be cheaper.
How much moonshine is illegally sold in the US? I would venture, not much.
“Just look at Vegas. Most guys can’t afford a go at the legal brothels and continue to sit the strip.”
The legal brothels are in ANOTHER COUNTY. Most guys stay on the strip because when they go to LV, they fly in, take a cab to the hotel, and stay on the strip. It’s not easy to get out to the next county hinterlands. It’s not a very good example, you have to admit.
“I presume that the age for legal prostitution would be set at 18. In that case, the above does nothing to address sex slavery of those well under 18.”
Sure it does.
It will give the child slavers less of an opportunity to hide among the larger population of adult sex slaves, which will dry up.
What do you support doing for "89 percent of prostituted women in the world who want to escape"?
” What do you support doing for “89 percent of prostituted women in the world who want to escape”?”
I don’t believe the numbers.
I was talking about inside the US. There’s not much we can do about what happens in the turd world. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one.
So, how do we go about freeing lawyers if 89% want out?
“Can you name the economic principle which predicts that demand would rise?”
It’s called common sense 101. The act is legalized, and more man will do it. I explained this in the very next paragraph you quoted.
“This is a supply/demand issue. I disagree. With it legalized everywhere, the supply of legal prostitutes will be close to the satisfaction of the demand at the point of equalibrium.”
No, it won’t. You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of current prostitutes would not qualify to work in a regulated sex-for-money industry. The few that will be willing AND qualify will noway meet demand. Not even close.
“Teetotalers used this argument against legalizing booze during prohibition - that moonshine would always be cheaper.”
Good for them Booze is not prostitution and prostitution was never legal. Comparing a whore to a distiller. Priceless.
“The legal brothels are in ANOTHER COUNTY.”
Whooptie freakin’ doo. People drive to other states and counties to buy booze all the time. Still want to use that comparison? People also drive to other counties to buy lottery tickets and go to strip clubs but dang it, it’s just too far if you are trying to get laid.
Women know that no decent man marries a whore. Your low opinion of women, expecting them to sign up in droves to be humped by sweaty fat strangers, is a bit disturbing.
Read tagline.
What about these? What are you willing to do?
Advancing another straw man, in response to my calling out a previous straw man, does not a sound refutation make.
Some companies do the same to their workers, but I don't see a big movement to outlaw jobs.
We free them when we find them
The Liberty position is: Who owns your body?
related thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1859008/posts
A wealthy retired builder was ordered to pay more money to the woman he divorced nearly 30 years ago after a judge heard she had “fallen on hard times”, the Court of Appeal was told yesterday.
Dennis North, 70, was divorced from his first wife Jean, 61, in 1978 - a year after finding out she was having an affair with the man she later went to live with.
In 1981 he made a financial settlement with the woman he married in 1964, buying her a house and investments.
Over the years, he increased her assets so that she would have been able to live comfortably for the rest of her life, the judges were told.....
I think we know who the slaves in the West are these days.
I already know the liberaltarian position. It is pro-militant homosexualism, pro-abortion, pro-pornography, pro-prostitution and pro-drugs. Many seem to think that they belong on a conservative forum because they happen to be pro-second amendment and against taxes.
That was a quote from the article.
“The victims and countries involved have increased in number, and the means of trafficking are different, but slavery itself has not changed much, has it?”
Yes, it has changed a lot. Slavery was a legal institution with thousands of years of history behind it. Prostitution has been illegal for a hundred years in most of the U.S. You don’t find children for sale in legal brothels in Nevada, nor do you find women beat or in debt to the brothel in them.
There is a huge difference between a legal institution (Slavery) and an illegal underground market (prostitution).
Yes, but you used it in an effort to refute a defense of libertarian thought, which does not include condoning sex slavery. Thus, it was still a straw man, regardless of the source.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.