Should prostitution be legal?

[roamer_1]

You want to use the law to impose your views on other free people?

No, it is you who is imposing.
If you want prostitution so bad, move to Nevada.
Or work to change the laws where you are.
Don't impose your immoral views upon me.

[Dexter]

No, it is you who is imposing

No, nobody is trying to force you to do anything in this instance. You want to decide what’s acceptable for other people. You want the government to force your view on others.

[roamer_1]

No, nobody is trying to force you to do anything in this instance. You want to decide what’s acceptable for other people. You want the government to force your view on others.

That is called LAW. And it should be administered close to the people. As in state law and county ordinance. And that is just fine with me.

In a federalist system, you can go where it best suits you.
So move to Nevada and more power to you.
Leave me and mine alone.

[Dexter]

That is called LAW. And it should be administered close to the people. As in state law and county ordinance. And that is just fine with me.

In a federalist system, you can go where it best suits you.
So move to Nevada and more power to you.
Leave me and mine alone.

There are consenting adults where you live that want to engage in these behaviors. You want the government to tell them they can’t, and that if they do it anyway they can lose their freedom. You’re not consistent in principle. It’s okay to use the government to control people as long as you approve of how people are being controlled.

[roamer_1]

There are consenting adults where you live that want to engage in these behaviors. You want the government to tell them they can’t, and that if they do it anyway they can lose their freedom. You’re not consistent in principle. It’s okay to use the government to control people as long as you approve of how people are being controlled.

I am absolutely consistent in principle. I am Conservative, and therefore a federalist. Law is fine with me... Local law. You are trying to shove your immorality down my throat from a statist position. Federal law.

Never content to let the various states work according to their design...
Like I said. You literally have no right to impose your sensibilities on me.
Do your thing where you are, and leave me the hell alone.

[goodwithagun]

So Fed Gov can create more regulations and governing bodies? No thanks.

[musiclady]

Yeah. :-(

Also you and Pete are both quality people. I bet you two could decide to resolve your differences. Pete may not like your God but I find it hard to believe that deep down he doesn’t know you’re a smart and principled lady. I bet you can sense something similar in him. That’s probably part of why you two have issues.

We can't resolve our differences because he hates the principles I live by and he hates the Savior whom I love.  I never say anything to him because it isn't worth the pain he tries to inflict on me (even when I say nothing at all).  He just despises who I am, and I can't do a blasted thing about that.

Wishing you all a Blessed Thanksgiving.  My sisters and their families are coming (we already had Thanksgiving with our kids).

God is GOOD, and we still have much to be thankful for.

@Dexter

[Dexter]

Local law.

So you’re fine with local laws that restrict the liberty or other free people based on your preferences.

[Dexter]

So Fed Gov can create more regulations and governing bodies? No thanks.

The government is a better boss than pimps and sex traffickers.

[TomSea]

I am absolutely consistent in principle. I am Conservative, and therefore a federalist. Law is fine with me... Local law. You are trying to shove your immorality down my throat from a statist position. Federal law.

Never content to let the various states work according to their design...
Like I said. You literally have no right to impose your sensibilities on me.
Do your thing where you are, and leave me the hell alone.

Absolutely so.

These people have Nevada, we don't need this law where people don't vote for it or want it. There's community values too. There's still "We the people". 

Like John Adams said, the Constitution could be dangerous if the people were not moral AND religious.

[roamer_1]

So you’re fine with local laws that restrict the liberty or other free people based on your preferences.

No, based on OUR preferences. Our local preferences. If I didn't like it here, I would move.

The problem is, your one-size-fits-all intention, dictated from 3000 miles away, means that it wouldn't matter where I move, unless out of the country.

That is why federal law was strictly bound by the constitution - To keep law local and let folks do as they see fit, except for a few well thought out guarantees that span the nation.

If we want the ten commandments in front of our courthouse, no gay marriage, no prostitution, no gun laws, no speed limits (which I guarantee we do), what the hell business is it of yours?

[roamer_1]

The government is a better boss than pimps and sex traffickers.

Oh HELL no. All the way around.

[goodwithagun]

The government is a better boss than pimps and sex traffickers.

Umm, no.

[Dexter]

No, based on OUR preferences. Our local preferences. If I didn't like it here, I would move.

The problem is, your one-size-fits-all intention, dictated from 3000 miles away, means that it wouldn't matter where I move, unless out of the country.

That is why federal law was strictly bound by the constitution - To keep law local and let folks do as they see fit, except for a few well thought out guarantees that span the nation.

If we want the ten commandments in front of our courthouse, no gay marriage, no prostitution, no gun laws, no speed limits (which I guarantee we do), what the hell business is it of yours?

People don’t all have the same preferences anywhere. You’re okay with a majority using their majority to oppress a minority with the law. You want to restrict the liberty of other people based on your preferences. Money exchanged for sex between consenting adults is none of your business, but you want to make it your business anyway. Your views on this matter are authoritarian.

[Dexter]

Umm, no.

You don’t think the government would handle prostitution better than law breaking pimps and sex traffickers?

[roamer_1]

People don’t all have the same preferences anywhere. You’re okay with a majority using their majority to oppress a minority with the law. You want to restrict the liberty of other people based on your preferences. Money exchanged for sex between consenting adults is none of your business, but you want to make it your business anyway. Your views on this matter are authoritarian.

Bullshit. My views on this are federalist. I am not telling you what to do. YOU are telling ME what to do. Butt the hell out of my business and worry about your own. If you don't like how it is where you are, then change it there, or move where it suits you better.

You are not advocating for an oppressed minority - you are advocating for the tyranny of the minority, which is a wholly different thing.

If literally everyone is for prayer in school, and one atheist objects, according to you, the atheist's tyranny can be imposed upon all the rest. From 3000 miles away.

Bullshit. Pure and simple. If the atheist doesn't like it, then the atheist is free to move elsewhere.

Prostitution is the same sort of thing.
If your sensibilities endorse the degradation of women then go where such a thing is acceptable, don't impose your bullshit on me.

[roamer_1]

You don’t think the government would handle prostitution better than law breaking pimps and sex traffickers?

Government doesn't handle anything better, ever.

[goodwithagun]

You don’t think the government would handle prostitution better than law breaking pimps and sex traffickers?

They are the government. They ARE NOT here to help. Prostitutes and pimps don’t pay taxes now; what makes you think they’re going to willingly pay taxes because prostitution is legalized, regulated, and taxed? Also, sex trafficking is a multi billion dollar and international problem. US gov legalizing prostitution has nothing to do with sex trafficking.

[Dexter]

Bullshit. My views on this are federalist. I am not telling you what to do. YOU are telling ME what to do. Butt the hell out of my business and worry about your own. If you don't like how it is where you are, then change it there, or move where it suits you better.

You are not advocating for an oppressed minority - you are advocating for the tyranny of the minority, which is a wholly different thing.

If literally everyone is for prayer in school, and one atheist objects, according to you, the atheist's tyranny can be imposed upon all the rest. From 3000 miles away.

Bullshit. Pure and simple. If the atheist doesn't like it, then the atheist is free to move elsewhere.

Prostitution is the same sort of thing.
If your sensibilities endorse the degradation of women then go where such a thing is acceptable, don't impose your bullshit on me.

Grown people having sex for money imposes nothing on you. The imposition is yours. You really think your example is equivalent? Also “Deal with what the majority wants or get bent.” doesn’t sound very libertarian to me, especially when the thing doesn’t involve you. Views like that delegitimize the conservative message because they’re hypocritical.

[Dexter]

They are the government. They ARE NOT here to help. Prostitutes and pimps don’t pay taxes now; what makes you think they’re going to willingly pay taxes because prostitution is legalized, regulated, and taxed? Also, sex trafficking is a multi billion dollar and international problem. US gov legalizing prostitution has nothing to do with sex trafficking.

You take business from the black market when you legalize. That mitigates some of the worst of it. There would be less victims all around if it was legalized.

[Hoodat]

Grown people having sex for money imposes nothing on you.

Actually, it does.  It imposes a moral statement on society that can be detrimental to that society.  The people of a society have the right to come together and determine through their legislators the moral code under which they will live under.  And if they choose to legalize prostitution, then so be it.  And if they choose for prostitution to remain illegal, then that is their right.

[Dexter]

The people of a society have the right to come together and determine through their legislators the moral code under which they will live under.

I look forward to using this against you in future debates.

[goodwithagun]

You take business from the black market when you legalize. That mitigates some of the worst of it. There would be less victims all around if it was legalized.

Okay, pay attention here: There will always be a black market when gov regulations and taxes are involved.

They 👏 will 👏 not 👏 pay 👏 taxes 👏

[Dexter]

Okay, pay attention here: There will always be a black market when gov regulations and taxes are involved.

They 👏 will 👏 not 👏 pay 👏 taxes 👏

The legal businesses that open up and take over the demand for prostitution will pay taxes.

[roamer_1]

Grown people having sex for money imposes nothing on you. The imposition is yours.

That is not true. It degrades culture and degrades women. I have grandchildren here.

You really think your example is equivalent? Also “Deal with what the majority wants or get bent.” doesn’t sound very libertarian to me, especially when the thing doesn’t involve you. Views like that delegitimize the conservative message because they’re hypocritical.

Bullshit sommore. Libertarianism is directly couched in federalism. Civil-libertarianism (Goldwater conservative) is not against law. It is *FOR* law and order. It prefers local law to all others. within the strict confines of an originalist reading of the Constitution, and the constitutions of the various states respectively, with sovereignty housed as close to the people as possible.

What you propose stinks of liberal anarchism, not to be confused with libertarian principles in the least.

Your first mistake is in the abject failure to recognize what prostitution does to a community - To the degradation of women's honor. What it does to promote adultery and divorce, and how it tears families to pieces. To sanction prostitution is to lend it credence - to favor it over the welfare of families and a decent environment to raise children. It endorses broken homes.

Your second mistake is to lend even more power to an overweening federal government, wishing for a federal decree to enforce your ludicrous proposal - No libertarian of any stripe would endorse that.

If you want to try it, then go where it is already legal, or change it where you are. You have zero right to impose it upon me and mine by federal fiat.

And don't try to wrap yourself in libertarianism anymore. It makes your ass look big.