USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
- Thread starter dxmnkd316
- Start date
- Status
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
Two thoughts on this. First, when we talk about regulating prostitution, or zoning it into certain areas of the community, that to me at least suggests there are potentially harmful aspects to these transactions.
Second, I'm not yet convinced these are entirely "victimless" transactions, even between two consenting adults. There is a certain crass, dehumanizing aspect associated with buying and selling sexual relations. I don't necessarily have a problem with society saying we want to try to limit that.
Two thoughts on this. First, when we talk about regulating prostitution, or zoning it into certain areas of the community, that to me at least suggests there are potentially harmful aspects to these transactions.
Second, I'm not yet convinced these are entirely "victimless" transactions, even between two consenting adults. There is a certain crass, dehumanizing aspect associated with buying and selling sexual relations. I don't necessarily have a problem with society saying we want to try to limit that.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
Hey, Strawman. Wanna play some ball?
As if it needs to be said, most of those of us who think we might want to relax these type of blue laws also think we should be thoughtful about it, look around at other countries who have different laws, and learn from other experiences before crafting our own solutions. As with the War on Drugs, the dumb, emotionally-satisfying solution isn't working and creates problems even bigger than the one trying to be solved. Moderation in all things. There are ways of controlling social ills that stop short of criminalization and still obtain the desired result. But these require thought and evidence, and those are the first two casualties of a moral crusade.
I literally laughed out loud. Very nice.
Hey, Strawman. Wanna play some ball?
As if it needs to be said, most of those of us who think we might want to relax these type of blue laws also think we should be thoughtful about it, look around at other countries who have different laws, and learn from other experiences before crafting our own solutions. As with the War on Drugs, the dumb, emotionally-satisfying solution isn't working and creates problems even bigger than the one trying to be solved. Moderation in all things. There are ways of controlling social ills that stop short of criminalization and still obtain the desired result. But these require thought and evidence, and those are the first two casualties of a moral crusade.
I literally laughed out loud. Very nice.
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
Even worse, you've now made human trafficking a lot easier, since that goes hand and hand with prostitution. Maybe a visit from the town building inspector or code enforement office is going to stop that, but I have my doubts....
Also, lets say you don't have kids. Do you want 20 desperate guys a day pathetic enough to have to pay for sex with someone who's just banged a dozen other guys roaming my neighborhood? Ewwww....
Even worse, you've now made human trafficking a lot easier, since that goes hand and hand with prostitution. Maybe a visit from the town building inspector or code enforement office is going to stop that, but I have my doubts....
Also, lets say you don't have kids. Do you want 20 desperate guys a day pathetic enough to have to pay for sex with someone who's just banged a dozen other guys roaming my neighborhood? Ewwww....
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
I at least am not arguing that there aren't, just as there are potentially harmful aspects of alcohol consumption or chemical manufacturing, which is why we regulate them with all sorts of laws.
My chief argument is that legal, regulated prostitution causes fewer problems than illegal, underground prostitution, both for society as a whole and for the women (and a few men) who work in the profession.
I at least am not arguing that there aren't, just as there are potentially harmful aspects of alcohol consumption or chemical manufacturing, which is why we regulate them with all sorts of laws.
My chief argument is that legal, regulated prostitution causes fewer problems than illegal, underground prostitution, both for society as a whole and for the women (and a few men) who work in the profession.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
As to dehumanizing, I think that's up to the people involved. Watching a documentary on legal prostitution in Europe some years ago, it didn't seem to me that the women involved felt dehumanized; they went into the arrangement knowing what it was. Perhaps we here have a different perspective on it, but I think that's more related the its legal status than the transaction itself.
We zone residential areas, light industry, retail, etc. in every town for a very simple reason - people don't want to deal with certain aspects of life while occupying certain spaces. I don't want retail traffic running to the lot next door when they're in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
As to dehumanizing, I think that's up to the people involved. Watching a documentary on legal prostitution in Europe some years ago, it didn't seem to me that the women involved felt dehumanized; they went into the arrangement knowing what it was. Perhaps we here have a different perspective on it, but I think that's more related the its legal status than the transaction itself.
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
That's just a really bad argument. People don't mind running afoul of the law to engage in those things because if they don't, they can't engage in those activities at all. People generally respect zoning requirements, because they're not a big deal--you can get your fix, you just have to go to a particular area to get it.
Sorry but that's not going to work. People don't mind running afoul of the law to engage in prostitution or drug dealing, but that citation from the zoning board of appeals is going to keep everybody honest?That's absurd.
That's just a really bad argument. People don't mind running afoul of the law to engage in those things because if they don't, they can't engage in those activities at all. People generally respect zoning requirements, because they're not a big deal--you can get your fix, you just have to go to a particular area to get it.
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
Which is absurd. Also lose the morals strawman argument because I could care less about other people's morals. Your assertion seems to be that one municipal bureaucrat is going to be able to do the job that the local police force can't in regulating prostitution? Okay...
You're also assuming everybody in prostitution is doing it willingly to earn a few bucks on the side, like college students and bored suburban housewives. Again, that's ridiculous. This isn't Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman we're talking about here. Rape. Beatings. Exploitation. STD's. All of this you want to make easier to happen, as again apparently the victims or witnesses of all this should take their complaints not to law enforcement but to the zoning commission, who will quickly put a stop to it all with a stern warning and maybe a citation or two.
Which is absurd. Also lose the morals strawman argument because I could care less about other people's morals. Your assertion seems to be that one municipal bureaucrat is going to be able to do the job that the local police force can't in regulating prostitution?
Okay...You're also assuming everybody in prostitution is doing it willingly to earn a few bucks on the side, like college students and bored suburban housewives. Again, that's ridiculous. This isn't Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman we're talking about here. Rape. Beatings. Exploitation. STD's. All of this you want to make easier to happen, as again apparently the victims or witnesses of all this should take their complaints not to law enforcement but to the zoning commission, who will quickly put a stop to it all with a stern warning and maybe a citation or two.
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
So people disregard serious punishments like jail time but will completely comply with a 25 dollar fine for bad behavior? We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one...
So people disregard serious punishments like jail time but will completely comply with a 25 dollar fine for bad behavior? We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one...
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
People don't want casinos in their towns. Who will sign up for a prostitution zone?
https://www.google.com/search?q=red...ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI8cTniPiAyAIVwxgeCh0Zswbj
The definition of dehumanizing.
People don't want casinos in their towns. Who will sign up for a prostitution zone?
https://www.google.com/search?q=red...ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMI8cTniPiAyAIVwxgeCh0Zswbj
The definition of dehumanizing.
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
Yeah, if we assume the penalty to be unrealistically light, then it probably won't work. Do you think the typical penalty for running an illicit liquor store out of your home is a $25 fine?
Yeah, if we assume the penalty to be unrealistically light, then it probably won't work. Do you think the typical penalty for running an illicit liquor store out of your home is a $25 fine?
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
I suppose that depends on what you consider "humanizing": to wit, is sexuality an integral part of our overall humanity, or can we (in a healthy manner) detach our sexuality from the rest of ourselves so that it is merely a mechanical act with no emotional component to it whatsoever?
Basically, prostitution seems to me to be a mixture of masturbation (on the john's part), perhaps an assertion of power over another, and fantasy ("I can pretend for awhile that someone actually cares about me and I find that soothing"). For the latter, many people pay psychologists and therapists for the same service, so that element of it is okay I guess.
It seems to me that prostitution is mostly sad, for both parties involved. One would hope that each could do better and one can be resigned that neither are doing worse.
addendum: for what it's worth, I do think it should be out in the open (i.e., legal), not because I am "in favor" of it being legal, merely because having it remain illegal is a far worse choice (similar attitude on drugs: illegal is terrible, legal is unfortunate but not nearly as bad).
Not sure what level of regulation to apply: do we "require" monthly tests for STDs, or do we expect that the top-end service will automatically do so to provide a competitive advantage, for example.
Not sure about licensing it either: it is far too easy to imagine that the person issuing the license will require an under-the-table kickback to expedite it vs stall it and ask for more requirements absent the kickback.
I suppose that depends on what you consider "humanizing": to wit, is sexuality an integral part of our overall humanity, or can we (in a healthy manner) detach our sexuality from the rest of ourselves so that it is merely a mechanical act with no emotional component to it whatsoever?
Basically, prostitution seems to me to be a mixture of masturbation (on the john's part), perhaps an assertion of power over another, and fantasy ("I can pretend for awhile that someone actually cares about me and I find that soothing"). For the latter, many people pay psychologists and therapists for the same service, so that element of it is okay I guess.
It seems to me that prostitution is mostly sad, for both parties involved. One would hope that each could do better and one can be resigned that neither are doing worse.
addendum: for what it's worth, I do think it should be out in the open (i.e., legal), not because I am "in favor" of it being legal, merely because having it remain illegal is a far worse choice (similar attitude on drugs: illegal is terrible, legal is unfortunate but not nearly as bad).
Not sure what level of regulation to apply: do we "require" monthly tests for STDs, or do we expect that the top-end service will automatically do so to provide a competitive advantage, for example.
Not sure about licensing it either: it is far too easy to imagine that the person issuing the license will require an under-the-table kickback to expedite it vs stall it and ask for more requirements absent the kickback.
Last edited:
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
Problem too with zoning is that something like prostitution (or drug dealing) doesn't take a lot of..um..."equipment" to set up shop. Really you can move around pretty easily. Set up in a "no hooker" zone and get shut down but not thrown in jail, and its real easy to move a few streets over and start up again.
Lastly, from some of the comments here people are really glossing over or refusing to acknowledge the dark side of all this which is exploitation, rape, and human trafficking. I'll say again, its not all high class talent from Hollywood movies running this business. I'm talking less about the women (or men) and more about the pimps.
Problem too with zoning is that something like prostitution (or drug dealing) doesn't take a lot of..um..."equipment" to set up shop. Really you can move around pretty easily. Set up in a "no hooker" zone and get shut down but not thrown in jail, and its real easy to move a few streets over and start up again.
Lastly, from some of the comments here people are really glossing over or refusing to acknowledge the dark side of all this which is exploitation, rape, and human trafficking. I'll say again, its not all high class talent from Hollywood movies running this business. I'm talking less about the women (or men) and more about the pimps.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
I'm not assuming any of those things, so apparently your ESP reader needs recalibration.
The criminal problems associated with prostitution are a result of its being forced into the criminal economy. Prohibition both formerly in alcohol and currently in drugs is the perfect analogy: when you drive a market underground you make everybody vulnerable because you are inviting the criminals in. When you legalize it and open it to the light of day you remove the vast majority of those problems. The problems associated with the simple biology and sexual ethics of prostitution are still there, but again regulation and transparency are better than forcing it underground.
The arguments you are making bear a striking resemblance to the bunk that teaching sex ed leads to an increase in the ills associated with teen sexuality.
Which is absurd. Also lose the morals strawman argument because I could care less about other people's morals. Your assertion seems to be that one municipal bureaucrat is going to be able to do the job that the local police force can't in regulating prostitution?
You're also assuming everybody in prostitution is doing it willingly to earn a few bucks on the side, like college students and bored suburban housewives. Again, that's ridiculous. This isn't Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman we're talking about here. Rape. Beatings. Exploitation. STD's. All of this you want to make easier to happen, as again apparently the victims or witnesses of all this should take their complaints not to law enforcement but to the zoning commission, who will quickly put a stop to it all with a stern warning and maybe a citation or two.
I'm not assuming any of those things, so apparently your ESP reader needs recalibration.
The criminal problems associated with prostitution are a result of its being forced into the criminal economy. Prohibition both formerly in alcohol and currently in drugs is the perfect analogy: when you drive a market underground you make everybody vulnerable because you are inviting the criminals in. When you legalize it and open it to the light of day you remove the vast majority of those problems. The problems associated with the simple biology and sexual ethics of prostitution are still there, but again regulation and transparency are better than forcing it underground.
The arguments you are making bear a striking resemblance to the bunk that teaching sex ed leads to an increase in the ills associated with teen sexuality.
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
There is a huge difference between being a "supporter" of legal heroin and being opposed to keeping heroin illegal.
Let's turn the question around: if heroin were legal, would you use it? Most people I know would not. They have enough knowledge, self-discipline, and access to support services that they could find better alternatives.
I would legalize all drugs but not merely do that in isolation: I also would concurrently implement programs to assist people in moving away from drug usage to cope with problems through other, more constructive avenues. and also have warning labels like we do on nicotine and alcohol.
There are several extremely compelling reasons to not have any drugs be illegal:
-- it would immediately put an end to the incentive to create new designer drugs (that are really a very dangerous scourge these days!)
-- it would deprive criminal gangs and terrorist organizations of a primary source of funding
-- it would remove the powerful incentive for dealers to recruit new users
-- it would allow existing users to seek help if they wanted it without fear of arrest
-- it would greatly reduce our prison population and all the costs we incur to operate prisons
-- it would free up law enforcement resources to prioritize other, far more serious dangers
These benefits to me are so very compelling and so very attractive that it seems to me that for people to insist on keeping drugs illegal that they are totally out of touch with reality (on this particular subject, not overall) and somehow think we are living in some kind of utopia instead. (with the exception being people who operate prisons under contract with the state; they have a strong vested financial interest in keeping drugs illegal as it drives quite a bit of revenue to them)
There is a huge difference between being a "supporter" of legal heroin and being opposed to keeping heroin illegal.
Let's turn the question around: if heroin were legal, would you use it? Most people I know would not. They have enough knowledge, self-discipline, and access to support services that they could find better alternatives.
I would legalize all drugs but not merely do that in isolation: I also would concurrently implement programs to assist people in moving away from drug usage to cope with problems through other, more constructive avenues. and also have warning labels like we do on nicotine and alcohol.
There are several extremely compelling reasons to not have any drugs be illegal:
-- it would immediately put an end to the incentive to create new designer drugs (that are really a very dangerous scourge these days!)
-- it would deprive criminal gangs and terrorist organizations of a primary source of funding
-- it would remove the powerful incentive for dealers to recruit new users
-- it would allow existing users to seek help if they wanted it without fear of arrest
-- it would greatly reduce our prison population and all the costs we incur to operate prisons
-- it would free up law enforcement resources to prioritize other, far more serious dangers
These benefits to me are so very compelling and so very attractive that it seems to me that for people to insist on keeping drugs illegal that they are totally out of touch with reality (on this particular subject, not overall) and somehow think we are living in some kind of utopia instead. (with the exception being people who operate prisons under contract with the state; they have a strong vested financial interest in keeping drugs illegal as it drives quite a bit of revenue to them)
Last edited:
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
Reading that article from 2007, it sounds like they certain have (had?) some issues that require attending in Nevada - crooked bureaucrats and brothel owners.
I'm of the opinion that when the situation is handled correctly, ensuring the safety and freedoms of all involved in legal prostitution can be accomplished. Will there still be some abuses of the system? It's likely, I'm not naïve. Show me an industry where there aren't abuses. We need to root out those perpetrators when we can. And yes, there are social stigmas associated with the profession, but I believe those will lessen over time. Tattoo artists were once considered completely seedy and amoral in some fashion or another. Now people view them with a mixture of artistic reverence or simply foolish people drawing on themselves and others.
Nothing's going to set us down some primrose path to perfection here, but there are better solutions than simply outright banning something that has been in existence since humans starting interacting in any so base and a simple - yet so complex - as a barter economy.
Reading that article from 2007, it sounds like they certain have (had?) some issues that require attending in Nevada - crooked bureaucrats and brothel owners.
I'm of the opinion that when the situation is handled correctly, ensuring the safety and freedoms of all involved in legal prostitution can be accomplished. Will there still be some abuses of the system? It's likely, I'm not naïve. Show me an industry where there aren't abuses. We need to root out those perpetrators when we can. And yes, there are social stigmas associated with the profession, but I believe those will lessen over time. Tattoo artists were once considered completely seedy and amoral in some fashion or another. Now people view them with a mixture of artistic reverence or simply foolish people drawing on themselves and others.
Nothing's going to set us down some primrose path to perfection here, but there are better solutions than simply outright banning something that has been in existence since humans starting interacting in any so base and a simple - yet so complex - as a barter economy.
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
Isn't the exact same thing true for organ trafficking? It's illegal under federal law to sell your own organs, and as a result that criminal activity has gone underground. Should we legalize that?
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
Kep this is Fishy type stupidity. Criminals aren't going to stop being criminals because you've taken away the legal ramifications of their actions and instead are issuing code violations. Your faith in humanity is cute, but borderline fanciful. If you legalize prostitution, you do NOTHING to reduce exploitation, rape, and human trafficking which go hand and hand with it. In fact, I'd argue you make it easier for the people in this business to ply their trade, because now there's no criminality associated with how they make their money. You've basically restricted even more avenues for the women caught up in this to get out of it as their pimps are now running a legal business and therefore can't be charged.
Drugs is a similar problem. Legalizing the trade isn't going to put Mexican drug cartels out of business. Its going to enhance their profits as its going to be a lot cheaper to transport and distribute their "product". Try setting up your own business in their territory, even if its all legal, and see what they do to you. I'm guessing they don't take you to small claims court.
Where you're getting confused is regarding appropriate punishment. With prostitution, don't legalize it but go after the pimps and johns. With drugs, increase treatment initially instead of mandatory minimums but don't eliminate the threat of criminal sanctions. Legalization is a disaster. Its loonitarianism at its worst.
Kep this is Fishy type stupidity. Criminals aren't going to stop being criminals because you've taken away the legal ramifications of their actions and instead are issuing code violations.
Your faith in humanity is cute, but borderline fanciful. If you legalize prostitution, you do NOTHING to reduce exploitation, rape, and human trafficking which go hand and hand with it. In fact, I'd argue you make it easier for the people in this business to ply their trade, because now there's no criminality associated with how they make their money. You've basically restricted even more avenues for the women caught up in this to get out of it as their pimps are now running a legal business and therefore can't be charged. Drugs is a similar problem. Legalizing the trade isn't going to put Mexican drug cartels out of business. Its going to enhance their profits as its going to be a lot cheaper to transport and distribute their "product". Try setting up your own business in their territory, even if its all legal, and see what they do to you. I'm guessing they don't take you to small claims court.
Where you're getting confused is regarding appropriate punishment. With prostitution, don't legalize it but go after the pimps and johns. With drugs, increase treatment initially instead of mandatory minimums but don't eliminate the threat of criminal sanctions. Legalization is a disaster. Its loonitarianism at its worst.
Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0
Rover - if it was legal, wouldn't it cut back on the number of the pimps and the resulting problems with them as well as STD's since the government (state/local) would be regulating performance?
Which is absurd. Also lose the morals strawman argument because I could care less about other people's morals. Your assertion seems to be that one municipal bureaucrat is going to be able to do the job that the local police force can't in regulating prostitution?
You're also assuming everybody in prostitution is doing it willingly to earn a few bucks on the side, like college students and bored suburban housewives. Again, that's ridiculous. This isn't Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman we're talking about here. Rape. Beatings. Exploitation. STD's. All of this you want to make easier to happen, as again apparently the victims or witnesses of all this should take their complaints not to law enforcement but to the zoning commission, who will quickly put a stop to it all with a stern warning and maybe a citation or two.
Rover - if it was legal, wouldn't it cut back on the number of the pimps and the resulting problems with them as well as STD's since the government (state/local) would be regulating performance?
- Status