Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

[Kepler]

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?

I think this actually gets at something intrinsic in this discussion: what is the inherent cost to the person, absent all other consideration, for selling x? There are things we expect to sell with little or no trauma -- for instance, we sell our time to our employer -- let's call that a 1. Then there are things we never think should be for sale, no matter what the benefit, like our lives and our children -- let's call that a 10. I think there are a wide range of attitudes about where sex falls on this scale. For those of us who put it at a 4 or 5, we can see people selling sexual services as sad and undesirable, but not worthy of prohibition. For those of you who put it more as a 7 or 8 (like organ trafficking), that balance shifts and you see prohibition as within the power of society.

I'm glad you phrased it that way -- I think you cut right to the heart of the matter.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

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.

But I think even in terms of just the financial costs of hard drugs, I think your only looking at one side.

The government's drug information website has this to say about hard drug users:

As a result, dopamine’s ability to activate circuits to cause pleasure is severely weakened. The person feels flat, lifeless, and depressed. In fact, without drugs, life may seem joyless. Now the person needs drugs just to bring dopamine levels up to normal. Larger amounts of the drug are needed to create a dopamine flood, or “high”—an effect known as “tolerance.” These brain changes drive a person to seek out and use drugs compulsively, despite negative consequences such as stealing, losing friends, family problems, or other physical or mental problems brought on by drug abuse—this is addiction.

So my take -
Hard drugs are highly addictive and as there are more people who try them just due to access, there would be more addicts. Never mind the damage to others around them (i.e., family members, children), the direct financial costs would be huge. Firstly, an addict will have a much harder time holding down any job (and many could cause disturbances at work). An unemployed addict will directly eliminate tax dollars...this could be an enormous blow to the economy. As the drug fact site says, they are more likely to commit crimes to pay for their habit...which could well result in reintroducing a like number of criminals that were initially eliminated. And for those that don't go, society would need to increase support services for individuals and their families...at great cost. And lastly, health costs from overdoses would skyrocket...leading to hikes in insurance rates. The long story short is that we very well could take this problem of drugs from a smaller percentage of the US population (how many of us really know hard drug users) to a mainstream problem.

Legalize softer drugs. It should be done. As it saves all the costs you claim. Pot's effects are moderate. The ultimate downside of hard drugs put them in an entirely different category.

 

[Kepler]

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.

You're missing the point by a mile but I think others are getting it; really all I can say in response is to reiterate what I've said below.

 

[Rover]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

You're missing the point by a mile but I think others are getting it; really all I can say in response is to reiterate what I've said below.

I think you're unwilling to cover how legalization ends the brutal aspect of the prostitution business and are now pulling a Trump and trying to hide in mythical polling results! In about 10 exchanges on this subject, you've yet to tell me how the zoning commission stops the rape, exploitation and trafficking that we all know exists. I'm going to assume your lack of answer to that question is due to you having no answer to it, and I'll leave it at that.

 

[Rover]

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?

How would that work Joe? What would legalization do to cut pimps out of the process? Kep won't answer this, but perhaps you can.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

If you legalize prostitution, you do NOTHING to reduce exploitation, rape, and human trafficking which go hand and hand with it.

Now imagine if you announced a prostitution zone...

First, everyone scrambles to move out before home ownership plummets. Next, the families leave so they don't expose their kids. Then, finally when the housing prices are low enough...you get somebody to move in. Who's that going to be? Unfortunately the worst of society...and it becomes a big problem because its concentrated. Property values drop like a rock, wiping out the towns real estate tax base, and the police force needs to be greatly increased. Congratulations, you've just created an urban blight zone with its own huge set of problems.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

How would that work Joe? What would legalization do to cut pimps out of the process? Kep won't answer this, but perhaps you can.

Oh, God, you've gone full Old Pio. Never go full Old Pio.

Pimps depend on illegality for their livelihood. Law enforcement protects legal business-people. Sex workers can't go to law enforcement, so a parallel criminal force grows up to protect (and exploit) them. This is exactly what happened with alcohol during Prohibition and with drugs during the WOD. What happened to the criminals when Prohibition ended? They moved to other markets (among which was prostitution).

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

How would that work Joe? What would legalization do to cut pimps out of the process? Kep won't answer this, but perhaps you can.

It's pretty clear there will always be "managers" or whatever you want to call them who will run the show. It's no different than any other type of employment. You can work for someone else or be a sole proprietor.

What I think was accurately portrayed in The Guardian article I linked to below is that unlike selling your services to your employer in a standard setting, whether it's in an office or on a production line, when you are selling your body you are effectively a piece of meat. No different than checking out the steaks at the local butcher's shop, the girls are examined, poked and prodded to see if they meet the customer's definition of "prime", and I think that has significant psychological effects not only on the seller, but also the buyer, and I don't think we've ever fully considered the overall effect on society of making it legal on a nationwide basis.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

I think you're unwilling to cover how legalization ends the brutal aspect of the prostitution business and are now pulling a Trump and trying to hide in mythical polling results! In about 10 exchanges on this subject, you've yet to tell me how the zoning commission stops the rape, exploitation and trafficking that we all know exists. I'm going to assume your lack of answer to that question is due to you having no answer to it, and I'll leave it at that.

I explained it in detail in my prior post, and I thought it was obvious from what I had stated before: criminality NEEDS prohibition. Take illegal immigrants as another example. As long as they are illegal they can't go to the cops if their bosses do the exact same parade of horrors to them. They sure can't unionize and self-regulate their working conditions. They are outside normal social channels and so they both use and fall prey to criminal channels. Make their work legal and they now have the full force of American jurisprudence behind them.

If you are primarily interested in stopping the exploitation of sex workers, legalize their work and undercut their exploiters' business model. If, OTOH, you think that sex work is by definition an abuse, then you should stand with the people making a moral argument. I respect their argument -- it is based on a wrong-headed axiom but from that axiom it develops as a completely logical argument. However, you are making (if I understand you correctly) a utilitarian argument, and I think that fails on logical grounds.

 

[joecct]

How would that work Joe? What would legalization do to cut pimps out of the process? Kep won't answer this, but perhaps you can.

Oh they'll still be there, but I believe in greatly reduced numbers. It's a question of safety. If I go to a legal whorehouse, I know I won't get rolled, the women (or man) is clean, the sheets are clean, and the food and drink is safe.

The legal house may cost more but safety and anonymity would be preserved.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

No different than checking out the steaks at the local butcher's shop, the girls are examined, poked and prodded to see if they meet the customer's definition of "prime", and I think that has significant psychological effects not only on the seller, but also the buyer, and I don't think we've ever fully considered the overall effect on society of making it legal on a nationwide basis.

I actually have sympathy with what you are saying here, although I would add that at least some of that psychological damage comes from social judgments of the women based on their work. I would take premarital sex as an example. Opponents used to write long screeds about the "psychological damage" of premarital sex, and still do -- John Oliver did a wonderful expose on some of the slut shaming that religious schooling inflicts on girls. Now that pre-marital sex is a near universal experience outside of fundamentalist culture, we know that was utter and complete bunk.

I do think that sex work is different from pre-marital sex because it is by definition a commercial, and hence a somewhat coerced, activity. All commerce debases us to some extent, and all work for a living that we would not do otherwise is to some degree ignoble. Sex work must be moreso because it is about the most intrusive sort of work one could do. But then again at least the end activity is not in and of itself degrading. It's not being a lawyer, a broker, or an advertiser.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

The legal house may cost more but safety and anonymity would be preserved.

Just don't put it on your Visa.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Oh they'll still be there, but I believe in greatly reduced numbers. It's a question of safety. If I go to a legal whorehouse, I know I won't get rolled, the women (or man) is clean, the sheets are clean, and the food and drink is safe.

The legal house may cost more but safety and anonymity would be preserved.

Plus the women themselves will make the best managers because they know the business the best, and because abusive managers won't survive in a competitive environment in which they can't use force.

 

[Rover]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

I explained it in detail in my prior post, and I thought it was obvious from what I had stated before: criminality NEEDS prohibition. Take illegal immigrants as another example. As long as they are illegal they can't go to the cops if their bosses do the exact same parade of horrors to them. They sure can't unionize and self-regulate their working conditions. They are outside normal social channels and so they both use and fall prey to criminal channels. Make their work legal and they now have the full force of American jurisprudence behind them.

If you are primarily interested in stopping the exploitation of sex workers, legalize their work and undercut their exploiters' business model. If, OTOH, you think that sex work is by definition an abuse, then you should stand with the people making a moral argument. I respect their argument -- it is based on a wrong-headed axiom but from that axiom it develops as a completely logical argument. However, you are making (if I understand you correctly) a utilitarian argument, and I think that fails on logical grounds.

To your second point first, you seem to continue to want to make the morals argument which I've clearly stating I don't care about. So, lets move on already from that.

To your first point, why have any laws then? Illegal immigration is too broad of a comparison. Their mere presence is considered illegal in the eyes of the law, not any act they're engaged in. As I've said before though, if you're brought here, or forced into, or kept in, prostitution, I don't see how making prostitution legal benefits anything. Hookers are going to unionize? File lawsuits?

Oh they'll still be there, but I believe in greatly reduced numbers. It's a question of safety. If I go to a legal whorehouse, I know I won't get rolled, the women (or man) is clean, the sheets are clean, and the food and drink is safe.

The legal house may cost more but safety and anonymity would be preserved.

Joe, this makes little sense. Most people don't want to be seen going to a whorehouse, and most municipalties won't legalize one. Apparently you're imaging some sort of Ozzie and Harriet prostitution operation. Do to the embarassment factor, all of this will STILL be underground, just now with less ability for those of us who don't want to live next to hookers, johns, and pimps with no legal recourse to stop it.

Would you like to live next door to a brothel? How about you Kep?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Would you like to live next door to a brothel? How about you Kep?

No. Would you live next door to a paper mill*? Do we therefore make paper manufacture illegal?

* If you've never had the pleasure of being downwind from a paper mill, let me tell you, do don't. It's the worst thing I've ever smelled, and I lived in Albany for a year.

 

[Rover]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

No. Would you live next door to a paper mill? Do we therefore make paper manufacture illegal?

Can someone move into an existing structure in my neighborhood and turn it into a paper mill overnight? Ummm...I'm thinking maybe not Kep. Are you sure you're not channeling Fishy somehow today?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Can someone move into an existing structure in my neighborhood and turn it into a paper mill overnight? Ummm...I'm thinking maybe not Kep. Are you sure you're not channeling Fishy somehow today?

With zoning laws, they wouldn't be able to turn it into a legal brothel either, and would quickly be shutdown by disgruntled neighbors lodging complaints with the police. You're starting to channel 5mn today.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

Can someone move into an existing structure in my neighborhood and turn it into a paper mill overnight? Ummm...I'm thinking maybe not Kep. Are you sure you're not channeling Fishy somehow today?

Firstly, you know I'm not channeling Fishy because I'm not mindlessly paraphrasing Washington Times columns as if they're my "thoughts."

Your example could be said about any activity we regard as a social ill. Somebody can open a surreptitious bar in his basement against zoning laws. How does that relate to anything we are discussing?

 

[Rover]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

With zoning laws, they wouldn't be able to turn it into a legal brothel either, and would quickly be shutdown by disgruntled neighbors lodging complaints with the police. You're starting to channel 5mn today.

Police aren't arresting people for zoning violations. Its not a legal brothel. Its a pimp having a girl renting a place and setting shop. That equals a fine, which pimp makes girl pay. Then they move one street over and keep going. No criminal penalties = little incentive to go out of business.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Frayed Ends: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 3.0

With zoning laws, they wouldn't be able to turn it into a legal brothel either, and would quickly be shutdown by disgruntled neighbors lodging complaints with the police.

...or brothels and crack houses are given warnings and the neighbors move out.