Federation vs. US principles

[TheGodBen]

Just FYI - I took that Political Compass test and my scores were....

Economic Left/Right: 3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21

I don't have much of a problem with anyone in that area of the chart, our major difference is on the economic axis and I consider that to be an academic matter. I disagree with your views, but what do I know? I'm not an economist.

Now, I am aware that the scale claims that it uses Left/Right in the economic sense--but Capitalism, the economic "Right", requires by its very nature a limited government ("Libertarianism"), whereas Socialism, the economic "Left", requires a powerful government to redistribute the wealth and determine the means of production ("Authoritarianism").

I'm left-wing, I believe that private companies should be regulated to protect individuals, the environment and the wider economy, and I also believe there should be a generous social welfare system including universal healthcare. That does not make me authoritarian because I also believe that individuals should be free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as their actions don't endanger the lives or freedoms of others. Want to marry another dude? Sure, why not. Want to protest about two dudes getting married. Knock yourself out. Want to smoke pot while watching internet porn? Be my guest. Want to join a monastery and spend your life in hardship devoted to God. It's not my idea of a fulfilling life, but whatever floats your boat.

China is often labelled as a left-wing state, but speaking as someone that is left-wing, I see nothing of my ideology in the Chinese government. They're oppressive, controlling, and do not provide liberty for their citizens. That's why the political compass test, and almost all tests of that nature, split the results into social and economic aspects. It's not because it's trying to rectify American and European concepts of left and right, it's because there's a huge difference between being authoritarian and being a liberal. I'm a liberal, I'm proud of being a liberal, and I have nothing whatsoever to do with a state like China.

One such issue is prostitution. Many 'libertarians' are in favor of decriminalization of prostitution, while others (particularly some of the feminists I know) are very much against, considering it a form of sexual slavery. I am in the second camp - claiming that it is "consensual" and "voluntary" ignores the economic realities (yes, I am sure that there are people who are in that business because they like it, but I am also sure that the vast majority is in it because they really need money), I am very much for having the prostitution illegal but I support the Swedish approach: instead of prosecuting and punishing the prostitutes, go to the root and cause of the problem - prosecute and punish the johns. Help prostitutes reintegrate into society without being considered pariahs.

Here's the thing, on the one hand you're pro-choice because you believe that a woman has a right to do what she wishes with her own body, but on the other hand you're willing to deny her the right when it comes to prostitution? Yes, many women are forced into prostitution by economic circumstances, we should do whatever we can to help those women to escape the poverty trap, but what about those that genuinely want to be a prostitute? Because there are some that do, for whatever reason. For those women, let's legalise it, let's have legal brothels so that they can practice their trade in a safe location where they're not being controlled by pimps. Prostitution has existed for as long as there has been human beings, it will likely continue for as long as there are human beings, by criminalising it all we are doing is increasing the profits of criminal organisations that view the women as a commodity rather than people.

Anyone who thinks heroin should be legal is not in their right mind. I had friends who were addicted to heroin and I know how harmful it is, one of my friends died of overdose. I cannot imagine why anyone who had a real understanding of what it is would want to try it. There is no way to keep the use of heroin moderate and relatively harmless, there are no positive effects to outweigh the bad, it definitely leads into an awful addiction and screws up people's lives and psyche, and yes, it kills.

Firstly, I'm going to qualify what follows with the information that my uncle is an alcoholic and heroin addict, as is his girlfriend, and my 3-year-old cousin had to live with his grandparents because his parents aren't fit to look after him. I know that heroin addiction is a horrible thing.

However, criminalisation does not work. How much of the heroin supply do you think UK authorities seized last year? Bear in mind that Britain is an island and the British navy is one of the most powerful in the world, so they should be in a good position to control the goods that get into their territory. The answer is 1%. Sometimes it fluctuates above 1%, sometimes it fluctuates below 1%, but every year it is in that region. The UN has estimated, and police officials agree, that in order to have an impact upon the heroin trade in Britain they need to seize 60-70% of the supply, so 1% is completely worthless.

The criminalisation of heroin doesn't work, it just drives the sale of the product underground where we can't control it. We have handed the control of dangerous substances over to petty thugs that have no concerns about the livelihoods of their customers. Legalisation doesn't mean that we'd be encouraging everyone to do it, we would continue to discourage heroin use, and the sale would be heavily regulated to fit certain parameters. But most importantly, legalisation would aid treatment for addiction because it would make addicts easier to locate, and they'd be more likely to admit to being an addict if they weren't afraid of the legal implications.

I've already pointed out the case of Portugal where heroin was decriminalised, since then deaths are down, HIV transmission is down, addiction treatment is up, and less young people are taking up heroin. Legalisation doesn't mean that we're giving up on the problem, just that we're using a different approach to tackle it.

 

[JarodRussell]

Let's sell heroin like alcohol. Surely that will work much better than when heroin is forbidden because we can better control it.

 

[DevilEyes]

One such issue is prostitution. Many 'libertarians' are in favor of decriminalization of prostitution, while others (particularly some of the feminists I know) are very much against, considering it a form of sexual slavery. I am in the second camp - claiming that it is "consensual" and "voluntary" ignores the economic realities (yes, I am sure that there are people who are in that business because they like it, but I am also sure that the vast majority is in it because they really need money), I am very much for having the prostitution illegal but I support the Swedish approach: instead of prosecuting and punishing the prostitutes, go to the root and cause of the problem - prosecute and punish the johns. Help prostitutes reintegrate into society without being considered pariahs.

Here's the thing, on the one hand you're pro-choice because you believe that a woman has a right to do what she wishes with her own body, but on the other hand you're willing to deny her the right when it comes to prostitution?

I could as well say that people have the fundamental right to sell their own kidney if they want to. Sure, they have that right, it's their own body. But excuse me if I think that some things that people do 'voluntarily' are 'voluntary' in a very suspect way, if people are forced to do it to because of their economic situation.

If you are legally not a slave but you have no means and you're fighting to survive and ready to do all sort of things, are you really 'free'?

Yes, many women are forced into prostitution by economic circumstances, we should do whatever we can to help those women to escape the poverty trap, but what about those that genuinely want to be a prostitute?

I think I've already mentioned that, didn't I? We all know that if someone wants to be a prostitute, they'd find a way to do it even if it's not officially called prostitution and organized that way. I don't think I have reasons to worry for those poor souls who would be denied the right to have sex for money or other services, if their customers end up arrested. I'm sure they would still be able to do it through other means. But I'm pretty sure that the majority of people in the business are doing it for economic reasons, and I'm more worried about those.

Yeah, it would be great if we just let those who actually love being a prostitute do it, and stop anyone else from being forced into it through circumstances... But the problem is drawing a clear line between the two. Especially when the society is doing everything to suggest that prostitution is a regular and acceptable social practice and particularly that prostitution in its various forms is a normal role for a woman that she has fulfilled since the dawn of history... "the oldest profession" and so on.

Anyone who thinks heroin should be legal is not in their right mind. I had friends who were addicted to heroin and I know how harmful it is, one of my friends died of overdose. I cannot imagine why anyone who had a real understanding of what it is would want to try it. There is no way to keep the use of heroin moderate and relatively harmless, there are no positive effects to outweigh the bad, it definitely leads into an awful addiction and screws up people's lives and psyche, and yes, it kills.

Firstly, I'm going to qualify what follows with the information that my uncle is an alcoholic and heroin addict, as is his girlfriend, and my 3-year-old cousin had to live with his grandparents because his parents aren't fit to look after him. I know that heroin addiction is a horrible thing.

However, criminalisation does not work. How much of the heroin supply do you think UK authorities seized last year? Bear in mind that Britain is an island and the British navy is one of the most powerful in the world, so they should be in a good position to control the goods that get into their territory. The answer is 1%. Sometimes it fluctuates above 1%, sometimes it fluctuates below 1%, but every year it is in that region. The UN has estimated, and police officials agree, that in order to have an impact upon the heroin trade in Britain they need to seize 60-70% of the supply, so 1% is completely worthless.

The criminalisation of heroin doesn't work, it just drives the sale of the product underground where we can't control it. We have handed the control of dangerous substances over to petty thugs that have no concerns about the livelihoods of their customers. Legalisation doesn't mean that we'd be encouraging everyone to do it, we would continue to discourage heroin use, and the sale would be heavily regulated to fit certain parameters. But most importantly, legalisation would aid treatment for addiction because it would make addicts easier to locate, and they'd be more likely to admit to being an addict if they weren't afraid of the legal implications.

Nice theory, but how exactly are you going to control it or discourage it? Here's the thing: while there are always going to be people who are especially drawn to "forbidden fruit", the reality of the matter is that most people are conformists and afraid of doing something illegal for fear of getting caught. Most people are also much more likely to buy something if it's practically lying around, easy to get and cheap. Decriminalizing heroin sale may help cut down on the drug dealing underground; we know that mafia prospered during the prohibition time in USA. But decriminalizing something also means that there will be many, many more people who will be ready and willing to try it, because it will be an acceptable practice and there will be no fear of punishment. You may try to 'discourage' smoking or drinking, but people are still massively smoking and drinking, because it's an acceptable social practice and it won't lend them in jail. You may hurt the drug underground, but you'll also end up with more widespread heroin use. 'Discouraging' would be silly and hypocritical: how can you argue with a straight face that someone should not take a substance because it will screw their lives and kill them, if you're at the same time legalizing it, therefore saying "go ahead, it's OK to use it"? And if you can think of a way to keep heroin use harmless, go ahead with it.

As for being easier to locate addicts, I never said you had to keep heroin possession for personal use punishable (though it gets tricky if one is both an addict and a dealer). The above still stands: if heroin use is not illegal, but it's difficult to find heroin because sale and possession of larger amounts is illegal, most people will still have a far lower exposure to it. And as I said - the number of people who will actively go searching for something that is hard to find and illegal to sell is far, far lower than the number of those who will buy it if it's very easy to get.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I'm all for legalizing "soft drugs" (alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, amphetamines, extasy, etc), but I'm on the fence for hard drugs (heroin, cocaine, etc).

'Discouraging' would be silly and hypocritical: how can you argue with a straight face that someone should not take a substance because it will screw their lives and kill them, if you're at the same time legalizing it, therefore saying "go ahead, it's OK to use it"?

I think that something being "not illegal" and "ok to use" is quite different. It's not illegal to harm yourself, but it's far from being "ok", and you should be directed to psychological counselling.

 

[JarodRussell]

What exactly do you mean by legalize?

What restrictions should apply? Can it be sold in the supermarket? At what age should you be allowed to buy heroin?

And what about the addiction? The fact that drugs are extremely addictive until to the point where you kill yourself with an overdose doesn't go away just because it's legal.

 

[DevilEyes]

'Discouraging' would be silly and hypocritical: how can you argue with a straight face that someone should not take a substance because it will screw their lives and kill them, if you're at the same time legalizing it, therefore saying "go ahead, it's OK to use it"?

I think that something being "not illegal" and "ok to use" is quite different. It's not illegal to harm yourself, but it's far from being "ok", and you should be directed to psychological counselling.

The difference is that the state is not working to facilitate self-harming, while talking about its harmfulness. If you're making it legal for people to sell heroin (and presumably taxing them for it just like everyone else, which makes the state/government a participant), this sends the message that it's OK to use it. Because that's what heroin is for. What else is anyone going to do with it? "I'm selling you this, but you're using it at your own responsibility, and there is something wrong with you for wanting to use it"? Very hypocritical.

If you don't want people using heroin, don't sell/allow the sale of heroin. Similarly, if you don't want people blowing their heads off or shooting each other, don't sell guns to anyone who doesn't have a good reason to carry them i.e. needs them on the job. If you don't want something to happen, it's a good idea not to arrange the circumstances for it to happen.

What exactly do you mean by legalize?

What restrictions should apply? Can it be sold in the supermarket? At what age should you be allowed to buy heroin?

And what about the addiction? The fact that drugs are extremely addictive until to the point where you kill yourself with an overdose doesn't go away just because it's legal.

Exactly.

 

[TheGodBen]

I could as well say that people have the fundamental right to sell their own kidney if they want to. Sure, they have that right, it's their own body. But excuse me if I think that some things that people do 'voluntarily' are 'voluntary' in a very suspect way, if people are forced to do it to because of their economic situation.

If you are legally not a slave but you have no means and you're fighting to survive and ready to do all sort of things, are you really 'free'?

You've just described a whole host of working class jobs right there. Do you think that my father wanted to be a refuse worker for the city, driving around in street sweepers cleaning up the mess of society? Do you think that bin-men love their jobs? What about people that have to clean out sewers? None of those people want to be doing what they do, but economic circumstances mean that those jobs are the only ones available to them. We can try to provide further education for them, we can try to help them find better jobs in the future, but right now they have to put food on the table for their families so they have to work at a job that they don't really want to do. Should we criminalise those jobs too? Why not?

Yes, lots of women feel forced into prostitution due to economic circumstances, and we can try to fix that, but prostitution isn't going to just go away even then. Criminalising it has only made things worse for those that have been forced into the profession. Legalising it and regulating it wont fix the problem, but it will make life much better for those that end up being forced into it.

Nice theory, but how exactly are you going to control it or discourage it? Here's the thing: while there are always going to be people who are especially drawn to "forbidden fruit", the reality of the matter is that most people are conformists and afraid of doing something illegal for fear of getting caught. Most people are also much more likely to buy something if it's practically lying around, easy to get and cheap.

Which is why I said legalise and regulate it. I'm not suggesting a society where a person can go to a supermarket and buy a six-pack of heroin vials, it has to be controlled and sold only by licenced establishments, with strict price controls to discourage it.

Decriminalizing heroin sale may help cut down on the drug dealing underground; we know that mafia prospered during the prohibition time in USA. But decriminalizing something also means that there will be many, many more people who will be ready and willing to try it, because it will be an acceptable practice and there will be no fear of punishment. You may try to 'discourage' smoking or drinking, but people are still massively smoking and drinking, because it's an acceptable social practice and it won't lend them in jail.

But smoking is a great example of a drug that people are choosing not to use. 50 years ago, smoking was a perfectly normal thing that nearly everybody was doing, it was pervasive. Now, smoking is on the decline, the uptake of smoking is on the decline, and the number of cigarettes used by smokers each day is on the decline. Why? Because we controlled the sale of cigarettes and started a campaign of information about the dangers of smoking. We forced the price up, we forced health warnings on packages, we banned it in public places. Now, smoking is no longer the norm, and smokers have become the minority.

Cigarettes are a good example of a dangerous, addictive drug that has seen a decline, not because we banned it, but because we controlled it. I want to see that happen with other drugs too.

You may hurt the drug underground, but you'll also end up with more widespread heroin use.

But you don't, Portugal proves this, heroin uptake is down since decriminalisation. Most people aren't idiots, they know that heroin is dangerous and won't do it even if it isn't illegal.

'Discouraging' would be silly and hypocritical: how can you argue with a straight face that someone should not take a substance because it will screw their lives and kill them, if you're at the same time legalizing it, therefore saying "go ahead, it's OK to use it"?

Like I said, legalisation does not mean that it's being encouraged. Cigarettes are legal, but that does not mean that the government encourages their use. In fact, the opposite is true. There's nothing illegal about jumping off the top of your house and breaking your own leg, but that doesn't mean the government wants us all to jump off a building.

What exactly do you mean by legalize?

Legal to possess, and legal to sell with a licence. Obviously, things would have to go in stages, so the decriminalisation of possession should come first, if that's successful then start licensing the sale to try and remove the criminal element. It's not something that can happen overnight, it could take 20 years just to get to the second stage.

What restrictions should apply?

That's debatable, I'd argue that the sale of narcotics should include some sort of warning leaflet about the dangers as well as information about how to quit. It shouldn't be allowed in public, except in special locations where there would be medical aid available.

Can it be sold in the supermarket?

No, only in specialised stores that are licensed specifically for that purpose. It would also be best not to sell alcohol in such stores.

At what age should you be allowed to buy heroin?

I'd put it in line with each country's legal drinking age, so 18 in my country, 21 in the US.

And what about the addiction? The fact that drugs are extremely addictive until to the point where you kill yourself with an overdose doesn't go away just because it's legal.

Target addiction services at the point of sale, help addicts understand that it's okay to admit they have a problem and wont be punished for it.

 

[iguana_tonante]

What exactly do you mean by legalize?

What restrictions should apply? Can it be sold in the supermarket? At what age should you be allowed to buy heroin?

The same restriction as any other substance of the same category. It should be sold in pharmacies and stores that respect specific regulations. As for the age issue, in the US it's illegal to buy booze if you are under 21, I don't see why drugs should be different.

And what about the addiction? The fact that drugs are extremely addictive until to the point where you kill yourself with an overdose doesn't go away just because it's legal.

You can kill yourself with alcohol and tobacco. Should we make them illegal, too? Drugs are bad, mmkay, but I don't think it's the role of the state to make self-harming behaviour illegal.

The difference is that the state is not working to facilitate self-harming, while talking about its harmfulness. If you're making it legal for people to sell heroin (and presumably taxing them for it just like everyone else, which makes the state/government a participant), this sends the message that it's OK to use it.

Not really. Using your line of reasoning, just the fact that suicide is technically legal it could be assumed that it's ok to do it. Self-harming behaviours, be it substance abuse or suicide, is not something that could be eliminated by law.

"I'm selling you this, but you're using it at your own responsibility, and there is something wrong with you for wanting to use it"? Very hypocritical.

I don't think it's hypocritical, just liberal. I am in no position to tell anybody what to do with their own body.

If you don't want people using heroin, don't sell/allow the sale of heroin. Similarly, if you don't want people blowing their heads off or shooting each other, don't sell guns to anyone who doesn't have a good reason to carry them i.e. needs them on the job. If you don't want something to happen, it's a good idea not to arrange the circumstances for it to happen.

I don't think I agree with your reasoning. I'm far from a gun nuts (actually, I'm quite unnerved by firearms), but I don't think a law-abiding citizen should have any reason to buy a weapon except "I want one". The difference between the US and Europe about gun laws, it's not about gun laws at all. It's about gun culture: it's not that difficult for an European to acquire legal possession of a gun if they want one: the difference is that most Europeans won't even think about buying one if they don't need it for their job. That's how you regulate behaviour: not with prohibition laws, but with social and cultural pressure.

That said, I don't think I've ever saw a compelling argument why we should legislate soft drugs like cannabis differently from alcohol. As for heroin and cocaine, as I said, I'm on the fence because of the extreme physiological addictive quality of those substances. Philosophically, I don't think the state should legislate self-harming behaviours. Pragmatically, I don't think it's a good idea to legalize them at this time.

 

[JarodRussell]

How's that going to work?

"Hey, I'd like to have heroin." - "Are you over 21?" - "Yes." - "You know it's bad for you, right." - "Yeah, I know, I don't care." - "Okay, there you go, and here's the flyer for rehab clinics, only if you're interested."


How do you control addiction? Will you forcefully put people into rehab (if the drug seller thinks that guy has enough)? If you do, then people will be afraid of going to the legal store again.
Where are those specialized stores getting their drugs from? Colombian drug lords? Afghan opium producers?
Will they sell drugs for a much cheaper price so that the illegal dealers cannot afford the competition?
And what's with the kid that's 16 but wants to get heroin anyway? It's still illegal for him, isn't it? So where does he go to? What happens to him if he obtains drugs?
What's with the one's that can't afford drugs no matter if legal or illegal but are badly addicted? Will there be a discount for poor people in order to avoid drug-obtaining crimes?

You're right about that possession shouldn't be illegal. And to a certain amount, it is already legal, even in the US. And in no country I know of you are actually punished for being addicted.

That's how you regulate behaviour: not with prohibition laws, but with social and cultural pressure.

Both is the perfect mix.

 

[DevilEyes]

I could as well say that people have the fundamental right to sell their own kidney if they want to. Sure, they have that right, it's their own body. But excuse me if I think that some things that people do 'voluntarily' are 'voluntary' in a very suspect way, if people are forced to do it to because of their economic situation.

If you are legally not a slave but you have no means and you're fighting to survive and ready to do all sort of things, are you really 'free'?

You've just described a whole host of working class jobs right there. Do you think that my father wanted to be a refuse worker for the city, driving around in street sweepers cleaning up the mess of society? Do you think that bin-men love their jobs? What about people that have to clean out sewers? None of those people want to be doing what they do, but economic circumstances mean that those jobs are the only ones available to them. We can try to provide further education for them, we can try to help them find better jobs in the future, but right now they have to put food on the table for their families so they have to work at a job that they don't really want to do.

I agree that many people could be described as slaves of their economic circumstances... I just tend to roll my eyes at such relativizations that are used to justify just about anything. "Oh, we're all slaves in some way or other, so it doesn't matter in the end, does it?"

Should we criminalise those jobs too? Why not?

See, that's where your comparison fails. We can't criminalize those jobs for the simple reason that someone has to collect the garbage and remove the bins. You can't leave the garbage out there, and you can't actually punish people for producing garbage. It's unavoidable.

But no matter how much someone might try to spin it, nobody has to provide sexual services to johns, and I can't think of a reason why it shouldn't be illegal to seek the services of prostitutes. I hope nobody will try to make the case of how it's unavoidable because those poor people just can't be denied having their urges met. (The old 19th century argument about 'man's natural urges' and how it absolves them of any responsibility.) I call BS on that. They'll be perfectly OK and won't die if they don't get their kicks. They can survive with masturbation or seeking willing partners, they only seek prostitutes because they think they can get away with it.

Cigarettes are a good example of a dangerous, addictive drug that has seen a decline, not because we banned it, but because we controlled it. I want to see that happen with other drugs too.

A decline? Not from where I'm sitting. Maybe it's been in decline in USA or Ireland, but in my country people are smoking everywhere. I believe we're sharing the first place in Europe for the number of smokers, and number of underage smokers. But we have the ban on selling cigarettes to minors and every store has a "we don't sell cigarettes to minors" signs... (I wonder how many of them are actually asking people for their IDs...) We have the TV announcements and newspaper articles about the harmful effects of smoking, and the "Cigarettes are harmful to your health/cause cancer" etc. warning signs on the cigarette packs... So what is wrong? Why is there no decline? Could it be because smoking is allowed in bars, cafes, restaurants, at concerts, in most workplaces, and so on, while USA and EU countries have strict rules about places where you are and are not allowed to smoke, and monetary punishments for breaking those rules? You may call it 'control' but to me it looks like a ban, just not a complete one.

 

[JarodRussell]

Also you say that drug use is only self-harming, which is a terrible understatement and misconception.

 

[sonak]

I Agree with GodBen on a key point about economic "freedoms:" many workers who take jobs aren't doing so out of a desire for those jobs, but because for them the "freedom" NOT to take those jobs means that they wouldn't have access to basic necessities. "Work or go hungry" is an illusion of choice, not real choice.


laissez-faire is a fallacy: First off markets DO NOT emerge from thin air, STATES create the conditions that enable them to flourish and set the rules by which they operate. Second, the free market is not a meritocracy: otherwise there wouldn't be working poor or idle rich whose only claim to wealth is the luck of the circumstances of their birth.

Rights should be defined positively as well as negatively. Can the state be a threat to liberties? Absolutely. Can unemployment and lack of a good education be a threat to liberties? Absolutely.




And uh, folks, aren't we getting a little off thread topic here?

 

[TheGodBen]

How's that going to work?

"Hey, I'd like to have heroin." - "Are you over 21?" - "Yes." - "You know it's bad for you, right." - "Yeah, I know, I don't care." - "Okay, there you go, and here's the flyer for rehab clinics, only if you're interested."

Which is pretty much how we sell cigarettes now.

How do you control addiction?

Why do you feel that it's the state's job to control addiction?

If the person worked in a public service job and their addiction was impacting upon their performance, then the state has an interest. Beyond that, I don't feel the state has a role beyond providing advice and services to those that choose them.

Where are those specialized stores getting their drugs from? Colombian drug lords? Afghan opium producers?
Will they sell drugs for a much cheaper price so that the illegal dealers cannot afford the competition?
And what's with the kid that's 16 but wants to get heroin anyway? It's still illegal for him, isn't it? So where does he go to? What happens to him if he obtains drugs?
What's with the one's that can't afford drugs no matter if legal or illegal but are badly addicted? Will there be a discount for poor people in order to avoid drug-obtaining crimes?

All legitimate questions, but this is why I said the process would be a long one. You can't just legalise drugs tomorrow, there's no framework in place to support such a move. All the things you point out have to be addressed, and it needs to be an international solution. It could take 20, 30, 40 years before the framework is in place and society is ready for such a move, until then decriminalisation of possession would be a move in the right direction.

I agree that many people could be described as slaves of their economic circumstances... I just tend to roll my eyes at such relativizations that are used to justify just about anything. "Oh, we're all slaves in some way or other, so it doesn't matter in the end, does it?"

Well, I could roll my eyes at anyone that says "Abortion should be legal, it's a woman's body and it's her choice. But I don't like prostitution, so I'm not going to give women a choice in that scenario"... but I'm a nicer person than that.

See, that's where your comparison fails. We can't criminalize those jobs for the simple reason that someone has to collect the garbage and remove the bins. You can't leave the garbage out there, and you can't actually punish people for producing garbage. It's unavoidable.

But no matter how much someone might try to spin it, nobody has to provide sexual services to johns, and I can't think of a reason why it shouldn't be illegal to seek the services of prostitutes. I hope nobody will try to make the case of how it's unavoidable because those poor people just can't be denied having their urges met.

I'm not claiming that it's necessary to provide prostitution services to horny men, but it's also not necessary to provide computers or televisions or novels, yet I'm betting that you've bought some of those in your time. Something being unnecessary doesn't not mean that it should be illegal, most of the things that people purchase in their lives are unnecessary. We buy things because we want them.

So, if a man wants to purchase the services of a prostitute for an hour, and a woman is willing to provide that service for a certain fee, why do you feel that the state should deny that transaction? Do you have a moral objection to it?

A decline? Not from where I'm sitting. Maybe it's been in decline in USA or Ireland, but in my country people are smoking everywhere.

Not in my country. I've known people that have quit because they're concerned about the health issues, because they don't want to be spending the money on it, and people that have cut back on how much they smoke because of both those reasons. Why that doesn't happen in your country, I don't know.

Could it be because smoking is allowed in bars, cafes, restaurants, at concerts, in most workplaces, and so on, while USA and EU countries have strict rules about places where you are and are not allowed to smoke, and monetary punishments for breaking those rules? You may call it 'control' but to me it looks like a ban, just not a complete one.

It is a ban, an indoor workplace ban. You can still smoke outside or in your own home, but if you're in somebody's workplace then you're not allowed. The idea is to make people's workplaces more pleasant and prevent health problems caused by second-hand smoke. You can still smoke in pubs, nightclubs, cafes... and so on, because most of them have special outdoor areas for that purpose.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Cigarettes are a good example of a dangerous, addictive drug that has seen a decline, not because we banned it, but because we controlled it. I want to see that happen with other drugs too.

A decline? Not from where I'm sitting. Maybe it's been in decline in USA or Ireland, but in my country people are smoking everywhere. I believe we're sharing the first place in Europe for the number of smokers, and number of underage smokers. But we have the ban on selling cigarettes to minors and every store has a "we don't sell cigarettes to minors" signs... (I wonder how many of them are actually asking people for their IDs...) We have the TV announcements and newspaper articles about the harmful effects of smoking, and the "Cigarettes are harmful to your health/cause cancer" etc. warning signs on the cigarette packs... So what is wrong? Why is there no decline? Could it be because smoking is allowed in bars, cafes, restaurants, at concerts, in most workplaces, and so on, while USA and EU countries have strict rules about places where you are and are not allowed to smoke, and monetary punishments for breaking those rules? You may call it 'control' but to me it looks like a ban, just not a complete one.

Well, the line between an "incomplete ban" and a "control" is fuzzy at best. As for smoking, it is in the decline in the EU and the US. As for your country, I don't know.

How's that going to work?

"Hey, I'd like to have heroin." - "Are you over 21?" - "Yes." - "You know it's bad for you, right." - "Yeah, I know, I don't care." - "Okay, there you go, and here's the flyer for rehab clinics, only if you're interested."

As I said, it would be more like "I'd like to have 25 grams of cannabis", but that's pretty much how cigarettes and alcohol is sold, and you can't argue that they are not addictive substances.

How do you control addiction? Will you forcefully put people into rehab (if the drug seller thinks that guy has enough)? If you do, then people will be afraid of going to the legal store again.
Where are those specialized stores getting their drugs from? Colombian drug lords? Afghan opium producers?
Will they sell drugs for a much cheaper price so that the illegal dealers cannot afford the competition?
And what's with the kid that's 16 but wants to get heroin anyway? It's still illegal for him, isn't it? So where does he go to? What happens to him if he obtains drugs?
What's with the one's that can't afford drugs no matter if legal or illegal but are badly addicted? Will there be a discount for poor people in order to avoid drug-obtaining crimes?

As TheGodBen said, those are good questions. I don't have all the answers. If we would ever go that route, it will be a long and hard road.

You're right about that possession shouldn't be illegal. And to a certain amount, it is already legal, even in the US. And in no country I know of you are actually punished for being addicted.

Well, I guess we are not so far away in our positions, then.

That's how you regulate behaviour: not with prohibition laws, but with social and cultural pressure.

Both is the perfect mix.

Well, technically, if you have prohibition laws you don't need social and cultural pressure.

 

[Rush Limborg]

With the Founding Fathers, a new scale was developed--a more scientific scale, which puts "complete rule by the people" (true Anarchism, or "radical capitalism") on one end (the far right end), and total government rule (the police state, fascism, centralized socialism, Marxism) on the other end (the far left). The scale is determined by the amount of government control--and, coincidently, economic freedom--a society has.

Absolutely wrong. As you can easily see with the insistence of the Right to legislate morality and curb social freedoms. This is why you need both a social and economic axis.

Define "legislate morality" and "social freedoms".

Again, true Libertarians are father Right than Conservatives, in that they advocate even less government intervention. They ask for more freedom in private lives, but it is in the aspect of allowances, not freedoms "enforced" by government. Civil Libertarians (a la the ACLU), on the other hand, are Center-Left, because although they do advocate freedoms from certain standards, they nonetheless advocate the use of government action to enforce on the private sector the "acceptance" of these new "freedoms".

Social Conservatives do advocate moral standards in government--but I would hardly compare that to, say, enforced standards on the running of business.

After all...one might say, laws that proclaim "Don't commit murder" or "Don't engage in rape or prostitution" are effectively "legislating morality"...wouldn't you say?

Never mind that on the American scale, "Libertarianism" by its very nature belongs on the Right, and "Authoritarianism" on the Left.

Again, wrong. You can't get more authoritarian than "with us or against us", and guess who used that slogan recently?

Ah. As someone in The Other Universe said, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes".

Unfortunately...many things are black and white. Morality, for one.

Your faith in the American exceptionalism is very naive.

Oh?

 

[JarodRussell]

How's that going to work?

"Hey, I'd like to have heroin." - "Are you over 21?" - "Yes." - "You know it's bad for you, right." - "Yeah, I know, I don't care." - "Okay, there you go, and here's the flyer for rehab clinics, only if you're interested."

Which is pretty much how we sell cigarettes now.

Cigarettes are not fucking heroin!!!

 

[T'Girl]

It is a ban, an indoor workplace ban. You can still smoke outside or in your own home

My Uncle works for Boeing Aircraft, there's no smoking on company property, from my Uncle's shop it's about 1,000 feet to the nearest control gate.

Your faith in the American exceptionalism is very naive.

Or perhaps Rush's faith is, in actuality, well founded?

 

[DevilEyes]

How's that going to work?

"Hey, I'd like to have heroin." - "Are you over 21?" - "Yes." - "You know it's bad for you, right." - "Yeah, I know, I don't care." - "Okay, there you go, and here's the flyer for rehab clinics, only if you're interested."

Which is pretty much how we sell cigarettes now.

Bingo. And you think it would be OK to have as many people using heroin as there are smokers today?

Well, I could roll my eyes at anyone that says "Abortion should be legal, it's a woman's body and it's her choice. But I don't like prostitution, so I'm not going to give women a choice in that scenario"... but I'm a nicer person than that.

Oh yes, of course. I am so shamed. I now realize I should be fighting for the rights of those millions and millions of women - and men - whose true desire and fulfillment is to have sex for money, and cruelly depriving them of that right makes them suffer physically and psychologically. We all know that that the real reason anyone becomes a prostitute is sheer enjoyment of the work and the love and fulfillment of providing a service. There is no economic pressure involved there, no sir.* And if it is, it's kind of like me translating a boring article to get some money. No?

And incidentally, I also think it's awesome when people sell their kidneys, showing that they have control over their bodies.

*Or, some prostitutes might not be really doing it because they like it or think it's great, but I am sure the difference is very easy to spot. I'm trying to imagine just how that scenario would work. Maybe you could interview them? Just take aside that street walker who has been working since her adolescence, and who's worrying how much money she'll make today and if it will be enough to satisfy her pimp, and ask her "Do you like being a prostitute? Is that what you want to do?" I'm sure this will work wonderfully, and that you'll get realistic results. If she says she likes it and offers you a specific service for a specific amount of money, you can safely conclude "Oh, see, she is one of those who like it and really want to do it." I wouldn't be surprised if you end up concluding that the absolute majority of sex workers are doing it because it's genuinely what they want to do and not because they have to. See! Great! No need to worry!

I'm not claiming that it's necessary to provide prostitution services to horny men, but it's also not necessary to provide computers or televisions or novels, yet I'm betting that you've bought some of those in your time. Something being unnecessary doesn't not mean that it should be illegal, most of the things that people purchase in their lives are unnecessary. We buy things because we want them.

Yes, of course, because me buying a novel or a computer is truly comparable to someone else buying the right to be get a blow job from an 18-year old who is servicing ten customers a day in order to get the money to support her baby. Or to get heroin.

Insert in the above post wherever you believe I would put them...

 

[iguana_tonante]

Define "legislate morality" and "social freedoms".

If you want to be pedantic, it won't do you any good. Used in this context, "legislate morality" is the attempt to enshrine into law the specific morals of a specific religion. And "social freedoms" (or as you may call them, "civil liberties") are the rights that protect people from the state, especially in matters of social interest. As for example of that, denying to a segment of the population the right to marry based on the theology of another section of the population is an attempt to legislate morality. And intruding into people's privacy under the scare of terrorism is a violation of civil freedoms.

Social Conservatives do advocate moral standards in government--but I would hardly compare that to standards of the running of business.

Why? Because you agree with one and disagree with the other?

After all...one might say, laws that proclaim "Don't commit murder" or "Don't engage in rape or prostitution" are effectively "legislating morality"...wouldn't you say?

No. Laws should be about finding the common ground between different ethical standards, and find a way to discourage behaviours disruptive to society while encourage productive behaviours. Nothing to do with morality.

Again, wrong. You can't get more authoritarian than "with us or against us", and guess who used that slogan recently?

Ah. As someone in The Other Universe said, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes".

And as a very smart guy once made me notice, that sentence, in itself, is an absolute. However, what was your point about this? That Bush was a Sith? Because I don't know where else you are going.

Unfortunately...many things are black and white. Morality, for one.

Not really. Maybe this is your opinion, but it's not a fact.

Your faith in the American exceptionalism is very naive.

Oh?

Your idea that the American political system is different from the European one on a fundamental level is an instance of American exceptionalism, the irrational belief that the United States of America has a special place among other nations, and it's fundamentally different (i.e. better) that any other country that is, was, and maybe will ever be. While obviously there are differences and nuances in every political system, the differences between liberal democratic republic are mostly cosmetics rather than ontological. The "centre" of the political spectrum is defined differently in Europe and the US, but it's just a matter of positioning on the social/economics plane. It's not a completely different axis, as you suggested. You can't really argue that "left" in the US only means "more government" while "right" means "less government": as I already said, the American Right is more than happy to intrude into people's lives, especially in the bedroom. So your "theory" falls apart quite quickly.

Your faith in the American exceptionalism is very naive.

Or perhaps Rush's faith is, in actuality, well founded?

I don't think so. As any irrational beliefs, nationalistic exceptionalism may assume many forms, from quite harmless ("me country is speshul"), to terrifying (and I don't need to give you examples of that).

 

[TheGodBen]

After all...one might say, laws that proclaim "Don't commit murder" or "Don't engage in rape or prostitution" are effectively "legislating morality"...wouldn't you say?

Murder should be illegal because it causes harm to others and impinges upon their right to continue living. I also happen to think that it's immoral, but that's not why I think it should be illegal. Rape is forcing someone to do something they don't wish to do; once again, anti-freedom. As for prostitution, I think it's immoral, but I don't think anyone's freedom is being is being hurt by it, so I think it should be legal.

And that's how I justify my positions.

Unfortunately...many things are black and white. Morality, for one.

I disagree, I think everything is a shade of grey.

Cigarettes are not fucking heroin!!!

You were making the claim that it's hypocritical have have something be legal and discouraged at the same time, I was merely pointing out that we already do that with cigarettes. I wasn't saying that those two things are comparable as substances (although the truth is that they're both addictive and cause death), I was just pointing out that there's a precedent for what I was proposing.

My Uncle works for Boeing Aircraft, there's no smoking on company property, from my Uncle's shop it's about 1,000 feet to the nearest control gate.

I didn't know that Boeing had a plant in Ireland.

Or perhaps Rush's faith is, in actuality, well founded?

Yeah, but my faith in Irish exceptionalism is well placed too. After all, we kicked out the Brits without needing French help, we had one of the highest GDPs per population in the world (pre-recession), and we rank number 1 for press freedom. Italy is pretty exceptional too, they had the freakin' Romans!

Oh yes, of course. I am so shamed. I now realize I should be fighting for the rights of those millions and millions of women - and men - whose true desire and fulfillment is to have sex for money, and cruelly depriving them of that right makes them suffer physically and psychologically.

Yes, and I bet those women that chose to have abortions absolutely loved it, I hear that it's a very enjoyable experience. And it's not just fun for the day, I'm sure that joy sticks with them throughout their whole lives as they think back to the wonderful time when they had a living foetus sucked out through their cooch.

Yes, of course, because me buying a novel or a computer is truly comparable to someone else buying the right to be get a blow job from an 18-year old who is servicing ten customers a day in order to get the money to support her baby. Or to get heroin.

Insert wherever you believe I would put them...

Have you ever seen the conditions inside those electronics factories in China where parts of your computer or TV were likely made? The people that work there and commit suicide on a regular basis might like you to know. Aw hell, why would they care what you think, they're dead. All because everyone in this forum, including myself, is not willing to pay $5,000 for a standard computer.

Actually, that makes me upset. I may have to go and buy a blowie just to cheer myself up.