Posted on 07/01/2007 12:14:26 PM PDT by wagglebee
Vegas is a gambling town. I’d wager that many tourists don’t even know that they are breaking the law hiring a prostitute in Las Vegas. They hear the “Sin City” ad campaign, they hear that “prostitution is legal” in Nevada.
Does the city have a public service message campaign on billboards/buses and in hotel lobbies informing visitors of local laws against prostitution?
“You would be mistaken if you think that no one illegally makes moonshine anymore even though alcohol is legal.”
It certainly isn’t widespread, however.
There is no massive underground economy of illicit booze funding international criminal cartels as there was during prohibition - such as there is for human trafficking, illegal drugs, etc now.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Given the fact that the last time I was in Vegas, there were people on every street corner handing out multipage flyers and booklets each with hundreds of ads for "escorts," I would doubt that most visitors know that it is illegal in Vegas.
Mark
“He repeatedly states that he doesn’t believe the numbers. I cited the State Department’s own figures.”
State doesn’t cite a source.
Since when do people on FR believe every old piece of crap that comes out of Foggy Bottom?
Just another form of illegal immigration. More cheap, exploitable labor to meet demand and do jobs Americans won’t do.
“Yet, unbeknownst to many, between 14,500 and 17,500 women, children and men are forcibly trafficked into the United States each year, as reported by the State Department.”
I don’t believe the numbers. State doesn’t cite a source. Their own range varies by ~ 20%. Not exactly precise.
Anyway, the fact that prostitution is illegal it’s self inhibits many from coming forward and trying to escape.
Hell, we estimate that 500,000 to 1 million enter this country illegally every year. 18,000 to 20,000 is nothing.
Libertarians try to separate morality from the law, insisting that “you can’t legislate morality.” This leads them to believe that a free America, unlike the one that’s existed since our founding, would be one giant whorehouse/crackhouse/casino.
“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.”
Yes and I duly challenged your assumption. I think it’s an incorrect assumption. It’s widely available - sheesh just visit Craigslist.com, click Erotic Services if you don’t believe me. Legality isn’t what keeps people from seeing them. It’s an individuals moral beliefs.
“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.”
That’s a big assumption. I suspect that a lot of women would be willing to ‘work’ for $100-$300 an hour. Crack whores won’t be an attractive substitute as per the economic concept of the substitution effect.
“Good for them Booze is not prostitution and prostitution was never legal. Comparing a whore to a distiller. Priceless”
There are definitely parallels! Both because of their legal status led to well financed international criminal syndicates. The War on Some Drugs is another good example.
“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.”
THe legal brothels in Nevada are in a different county - over an hour from the strip. Most people who visit NV don’t rent a car. 1 hour back and forth in a cab is expensive and inconvenient.
“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.”
I’m not sure why you think I have a low opinion of women. I don’t think having sex makes someone a bad person.
This leads them to believe that a free America, unlike the one that’s existed since our founding, would be one giant whorehouse/crackhouse/casino.
Which, surprisingly enough, is what the Muhammadens think "paradise" is.
“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’s quite a spin.
I’m a little l libertarian. I vote straight R. The Republican party is a coalition of different people with different agendas with the commonality being that small government is good government.
Independence day is coming up. I support individual liberty. I have “gay” friends, some of them are fine people. I don’t approve of their sexual habits, but they’re not my business. I’m not sure the federal government belongs in the marriage business at all, and don’t think states should be forced to accept marriages from other states.
If people want to look at porn, do drugs, and screw hookers, then I’m not convinced that using the force of government to ban these activities isn’t worse than legalizing them.
Please don’t conflate all the issues you did to make your opponent look like some kind of evil monster. It just ain’t so. Any more than the dumb liberal argument that conservatives want to put hall monitors in every bedroom. Though some FReepers make me wonder sometimes. However I understand they are the exception rather than the rule.
Government statistics of how many illegal aliens enter the country each year vary by much more than that. Is it you contention that this is also not a problem?
I always find it interesting when anti-Liberty, pro-Statist types call for pro-Liberty, small-government types to leave this forum. I'm pretty sure it's because they want to be able to sit around and high five each other over what new social control law they have enacted without the bother of debating those who believe in freedom, liberty, and small government. Maybe you realize your arguments can't stand up to more rational ones. Well, the forum owner has always welcomed us here--so get used to it.
That's where most liberaltarians are mistaken. They believe that LIMITED government means small government and that has never been the case. The United States Constitution explicitly permits the individual states to outlaw prostitution and all but one has decided to do so.
“liberaltarians”
The name-calling makes you look like an immature jerk.
How about I call you a Conseriberal? After all, you both favor using the power of the leviathan State to force your personal views and foibles on others.
Liberals want to control our wallet, and SoCons want to control our bodies and bedrooms. I want government (IE idiot politicians who I don’t trust) the hell out of both.
“That’s where most liberaltarians are mistaken. They believe that LIMITED government means small government and that has never been the case.”
Sure it is - it was inherently true when states rights were respected. I blame the 17th amendment, personally.
Just a few questions:
- When did LIMITED government become "small" government? And isn't really NO government that many of you would prefer?
- Is it your contention that the Constitution DOES NOT permit states to outlaw prostitution and whatever other immoral activities you wish to see legalized?
- Is it your contention that the Constitution DOES NOT permit the federal government to outlaw people being brought into the country and moved across state lines against their will?
- And finally is it your contention that Jim Robinson WOULD NOT support laws that prohibit such things as abortion and homosexual marriage?
Let me translate what you just said. The position is:
1.Pro-personal freedom in the privacy of your bedroom.
2. You have the next one wrong, the position is that it is not to be decided at the federal level. It is a 10th amendment thing.
3. pro-first amendment
4. pro- first amendment again, as well as pro-personal freedom
5. Pro- individual rights and responsiblities.
It is also the only Biblical based philosophy.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Every man must stand or fall before his own master
Take the plank out of you're eye before you attempt to take the splinter out of your brothers eye.
God says "mind your own business and not your brothers". Over and over, in many ways. The Bible is a document of freedom, not of oppression.
Go read Romans 14. "The parable of the weak and strong brother." You might be surprised at who God called the weak brother.
1cor6:10 is also a good verse.
I am a Republican, it saddens me to have to fight the modern day Pharasees, over common sense stuff. When you call for a law to restrict one, you restrict all, do you not trust yourself?
Forcing your religion on others through law is anti-biblical and anti-freedom.
The key concept here is "Who owns your body?"
Do you think the state does?
Western predators? That is like 2%. Where is the out rage againt the Arabs and African countries where this is still legal and/or permitted?
Talk about blame the West first. Sheesh.
That is the most pointless, incoherent, misrepresentative post on this entire thread. Congrats!
“When did LIMITED government become “small” government? And isn’t really NO government that many of you would prefer?”
It was small for a long time. It’s power was limited. As it grows, so does it’s power. Go back and read the federalist and antifederalist papers, then come back and tell us how we could have a large but limited government.
“Is it your contention that the Constitution DOES NOT permit states to outlaw prostitution and whatever other immoral activities you wish to see legalized?”
Can you quote one person saying that on this thread?
Those of us you are debating, if one could call it that, support it being legalized. Your question is nonsensical. State government has the power to regulate a lot of things, but just because you can isn’t a good reason!
“Is it your contention that the Constitution DOES NOT permit the federal government to outlaw people being brought into the country and moved across state lines against their will?”
VERY misrepresentative. Can you quote anyone saying that on this thread? I support legal prostitution. I oppose human slavery. In my opinion the evidence points to prohibition causing the condition of slavery.
“And finally is it your contention that Jim Robinson WOULD NOT support laws that prohibit such things as abortion and homosexual marriage?”
Who said anything about that? Why did you ping Jim to this thread with such a rotten misrepresentative post, in particular this comment? It’s almost like you’re just trying to stir up some poop.
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.