AOC Promotes Prostitution: ‘Sex Work Is Work’

[libertybele]

Funny, but the IRS couldn't run a brothel at a profit.
Think about that.
"Goods" aren't sold, and services only rented, and they couldn't make money--in the oldest profession.

Oh, but if prostitution became legal, they would make people register their "business" and you can bet they would require them to pay taxes.

[Knox27]

We have all kinds of laws; drinking age, forbidding of selling alcohol to minors, speed limits, traffic lights, stop signs, school zones, voting age, etc, etc., ALL could be considered infringing on one's rights. 

Setting the "tone" for your kids ... so perhaps a parent thinks incest is ok in their own home -- does that make it legal??

Our Constitution was founded upon principles and morals related to Christianity; like it or not. 

Too many dingbats believe that our Constitution is "outdated" -- that is only the beginning of what's wrong with our Republic today.  Too many disregard the Constitution when it IS one of the greatest documents ever written and has served this country very well for many decades; problems only arose when people, including our politicians decided it was ok to circumvent the Constitution to fit their agenda and nobody held those idiots responsible. 

It is MY duty and IMHO the duty of ALL Americans to obey and defend our Constitution!!!

This is incorrect.  The Constitution was inspired by the enlightenment.  America was partially founded on freedom from religious persecution.  Christianity, or any religion, has no place in influencing our laws.

And under article 1 section 8, those laws you mentioned the "infringe" on peoples rights are "neccesary and proper"

But prostitution is a voluntary free exchange that does not cause harm to anyone.  Rape, murder, blasting through stop signs, selling booze to an 8 year old...all these things cause harm.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

If you lived in a community that didn't want catholics to have a place to congregate, you couldn't pass that law. Or at least it would be struck down when challenged.  You and your community have no say on enacting any law that restricts peoples rights aside from what is spoken to under article 1.

[libertybele]

This is incorrect.  The Constitution was inspired by the enlightenment.  America was partially founded on freedom from religious persecution.  Christianity, or any religion, has no place in influencing our laws.

And under article 1 section 8, those laws you mentioned the "infringe" on peoples rights are "neccesary and proper"

But prostitution is a voluntary free exchange that does not cause harm to anyone.  Rape, murder, blasting through stop signs, selling booze to an 8 year old...all these things cause harm.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

If you lived in a community that didn't want catholics to have a place to congregate, you couldn't pass that law. Or at least it would be struck down when challenged.  You and your community have no say on enacting any law that restricts peoples rights aside from what is spoken to under article 1.

Wrong.  This country was found upon Christian principles period. 

Prostitution doesn't cause harm?  Tell that to the wife that files for divorce because she found out her husband is getting his jollies from a prostitute and the impact of divorce on their kids is another story.

Then there's the 10th Amendment; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[roamer_1]

I love your descriptions and I think you are absolutely right. The chaos in the streets, is because they long for Mayberry and are too cowardly to say so or live their lives honestly.

Folks don't get that they can't have it both ways. You can't support the sins of Man and have a place where your daughter can safely walk home from her friend's house after dark... You want a place where your kid can run down to the park down the street to play with his friends, or ride his bike all around the neighborhood? That ain't there where sin lives. And folks know it... Helicopter moms are a legit reaction.

There was a reason why them kind were across the tracks in days gone by... and even that was too much of a compromise as it turns out.

[Smokin Joe]

Those in black robes are no longer relevant to me anymore.  They may rule however they want.  They however will NOT change my morals, integrity or my principles.  Most are a bunch of hypocrites and they all deserve a big giant middle finger. 

I don't believe in abortion, gay marriage or stealing elections...that's their rules...not how I opt to conduct my life.

I am with you on that.
Their abject failure to deal with a difficult situation has rendered the Courts of man moot in my opinion, by virtue of their rulings or simply being mute.
I will abide as best I can (I'm not perfect, after all) by what Almighty God laid down in His rules, which on balance make for a simpler, happier, and more sane life. I will resist external compulsion to do otherwise, from whatever source. The level of that resistance will depend on the level of insistence, intended to match or supercede it.

When all is said and done, I will have to give account to my Maker for my actions, thoughts, and deeds, none other. We always have a choice, no matter how unattractive the immediate consequences may seem.

[roamer_1]

This is incorrect.  The Constitution was inspired by the enlightenment.  America was partially founded on freedom from religious persecution.  Christianity, or any religion, has no place in influencing our laws.

You literally don't know what you're talking about. Our legal precedent was literally established upon two things: English Common Law and the Holy Bible. It was not until the sixties that the Bible was removed from precedent.

[sneakypete]

Individual freedom would encompass taking any action or expressing any thought without restraint of any kind.  Want to drive on the wrong side of the road?  Individual freedom.  Want to rape your school teacher?  Individual freedom.  Want to rob a bank?  Individual freedom.  Hope that helps.

@Hoodat

It does. It tells me even you know you are unhinged when it comes to sex,and are willing to go to any extreme to justify your biases.

Proof of this is you consensual sex with rape,driving on the wrong side of the road (potential murder),and bank robbery.

Did you forget molesting farm animals?

[Smokin Joe]

I love your descriptions and I think you are absolutely right. The chaos in the streets, is because they long for Mayberry and are too cowardly to say so or live their lives honestly.

I think it is because they ENVY those they perceive as having that "Mayberry", (even though it is seldom actually so), and in their envy, seek not to build their own Mayberry (which would require giving up too many of their personal vices) but to destroy the reminder that they could abandon their ways which prevent them from having the same thing.

[Smokin Joe]

Oh, but if prostitution became legal, they would make people register their "business" and you can bet they would require them to pay taxes.

In the proper syntax, the sin tax is ever a means of winking at things which may not be wholesome, and which government would otherwise prohibit. It's their cut, which makes government as much a whore as the 'service providers'.
Morality for sale, codified.

[sneakypete]

Wrong.  This country was found upon Christian principles period. 

 

@libertybele

HORSEHILLARY!

If that were true,why did so many founding fathers deny it? Religious FREEDOM is a Constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT.

Get someone to explain the different to you between a right and a mandate.

[sneakypete]

In the proper syntax, the sin tax is ever a means of winking at things which may not be wholesome, and which government would otherwise prohibit. It's their cut, which makes government as much a whore as the 'service providers'.
Morality for sale, codified.

@Smokin Joe

Wrong!

So-called "sin taxes" are justified because these practices usually call for additional police presence due to so many people be ing so passionate about what they are doing.

And when it comes to passionate,there are few people more passionate than compulsive gamblers. It's like being a junkie,and they will do anything and everything they have to do to feed their monkey.

[Knox27]

Wrong.  This country was found upon Christian principles period. 

Prostitution doesn't cause harm?  Tell that to the wife that files for divorce because she found out her husband is getting his jollies from a prostitute and the impact of divorce on their kids is another story.

Then there's the 10th Amendment; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The writers of the Constitution were heavily influenced by Montesquieu and locke and enlightenment thinkers.   There are zero references to God or divinity in the document.  From Madisons writings to adams statement in the treaty of tripoli, its clear that the founding fathers were against the influence of religion on government and that it absolutely was not founded on Christianity.  The concepts of "sin" are completely irrelevant to governing.  People are free to do as they please if they don't hurt anyone.

And blaming prostitution in that story is absurd.  Youre arguing for cheating on a spouse to be illegal.  Nevermind that whether prostitution is illegal or not wouldn't change that marriage.  Going to a bar and neglecting your wife every night is legal, would you argue for laws against it?

[roamer_1]

Youre arguing for cheating on a spouse to be illegal.  Nevermind that whether prostitution is illegal or not wouldn't change that marriage.  Going to a bar and neglecting your wife every night is legal, would you argue for laws against it?

It used to be so - If not illegal per se, the basis for divorce and the imposition of alimony and child support. And yes, it did matter to marriage. Successful marriages were much higher in the past, and divorces much lower.

[roamer_1]

The writers of the Constitution were heavily influenced by Montesquieu and locke and enlightenment thinkers.   There are zero references to God or divinity in the document.  From Madisons writings to adams statement in the treaty of tripoli, its clear that the founding fathers were against the influence of religion on government and that it absolutely was not founded on Christianity.  The concepts of "sin" are completely irrelevant to governing.  People are free to do as they please if they don't hurt anyone.

And no, the founders were 3rd rail with regard to enlightenment, and properly so, since the so called enlightenment proper ends in communism. And I think you are reading the founders though the prism of your bias. The point was freedom OF religion, not freedom from it.

[Knox27]

You literally don't know what you're talking about. Our legal precedent was literally established upon two things: English Common Law and the Holy Bible. It was not until the sixties that the Bible was removed from precedent.

This is revisionist history, wishful thinking on the part of a wistful theocrat.  Its very clear from the writings of the founding fathers where their influence came from.  They did not try to hide it.  The Constitution does not mention God at all.  That's not an accident.

[Smokin Joe]

This is incorrect.  The Constitution was inspired by the enlightenment.  America was partially founded on freedom from religious persecution.  Christianity, or any religion, has no place in influencing our laws.

And under article 1 section 8, those laws you mentioned the "infringe" on peoples rights are "neccesary and proper"

But prostitution is a voluntary free exchange that does not cause harm to anyone.  Rape, murder, blasting through stop signs, selling booze to an 8 year old...all these things cause harm.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

If you lived in a community that didn't want catholics to have a place to congregate, you couldn't pass that law. Or at least it would be struck down when challenged.  You and your community have no say on enacting any law that restricts peoples rights aside from what is spoken to under article 1.

What you are missing is that any community has the collective Right to set agreed upon standards of behaviour for itself. We're talking about a voluntary compact after all. Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, after all, for the purpose of protecting the Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, to borrow some phrases from the Declaration. No one says you have to live in a community which does not align with your own consent, and you are free to choose to live elsewhere. That's why a national law is a bad idea, and why government is best kept local. The fundamental, enumerated Rights were seen as something that everyone would be interested in preserving, and while the door was left open to other Rights not named, before pulling those rabbits out of the rabbit hole, the impact on the Rights of others needs to be considered. For instance, in the manufacture of the 'right' to abortion, it seems the Right of the developing baby to Life was left out of the equation. "Liberty" got a bunch of emphasis, but the Founders named those specific Rights in order for a reason, that being the foremost had the foremost precedence. Liberty or the pursuit of happiness are moot if you are dead, Without life and Liberty, the pursuit of happiness is rendered difficult, if not impossible.

I am not against the idea that consenting adults who affect no others can do what they wish in the privacy of their homes. But 'red light' districts bring a class of clientele, as well as those who would control that business, and that has spinoffs which can seriously impact a neighborhood and the quality of life there for others. It is those associated associates and behaviours which cause public problems, not the individual acts of one individual (or pair of individuals) in private. At that point the impact goes beyond those who engage in an individual act and encroaches on the lives and Rights of those who are not party to that compact.

I don't have objection, for instance to titty bars. We had 'em in an oil boom town. It was the knifings and shootings out back that created a problem for the community, and even though prior to the boom those establishments had operated with an absolute minimum of violence and other crime, they were banned because of the violent behaviour which became associated with them. So, too, does prostitution attract an element of society which just won't behave in a civil fashion, and for that reason it is commonly banned, all other moral reasons aside.

[roamer_1]

This is revisionist history, wishful thinking on the part of a wistful theocrat.  Its very clear from the writings of the founding fathers where their influence came from.  They did not try to hide it.  The Constitution does not mention God at all.  That's not an accident.

No, but the Declaration does. THAT is the founding. And that is not by accident either.
And I would encourage a trip through Blackstone's law before setting your view in stone... There you will come to find understanding wrt 'nature's God' and the responsibilities of king, lord and citizen toward God... All wrapped up undeniably in our nation's law and precedent. Literally the beginning of our law, as no law can be adjudicated without precedent.

[Knox27]

And no, the founders were 3rd rail with regard to enlightenment, and properly so, since the so called enlightenment proper ends in communism. And I think you are reading the founders though the prism of your bias. The point was freedom OF religion, not freedom from it.

The enlightenment ends in communism? What tripe is this?

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are intertwined.  Practice in your home as you wish but do not impose anything on me.  Even if I live next door, your belief in what is or isn't a sin is not any basis to make laws.  Don't like prostitution? Don't engage in it.  And in return I won't try to ban you from going to a house of worship.

The Holy Bible as the basis...should I hurry and make all the graven images I can before its made illegal?

[Knox27]

What you are missing is that any community has the collective Right to set agreed upon standards of behaviour for itself. We're talking about a voluntary compact after all. Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, after all, for the purpose of protecting the Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, to borrow some phrases from the Declaration. No one says you have to live in a community which does not align with your own consent, and you are free to choose to live elsewhere. That's why a national law is a bad idea, and why government is best kept local. The fundamental, enumerated Rights were seen as something that everyone would be interested in preserving, and while the door was left open to other Rights not named, before pulling those rabbits out of the rabbit hole, the impact on the Rights of others needs to be considered. For instance, in the manufacture of the 'right' to abortion, it seems the Right of the developing baby to Life was left out of the equation. "Liberty" got a bunch of emphasis, but the Founders named those specific Rights in order for a reason, that being the foremost had the foremost precedence. Liberty or the pursuit of happiness are moot if you are dead, Without life and Liberty, the pursuit of happiness is rendered difficult, if not impossible.

I am not against the idea that consenting adults who affect no others can do what they wish in the privacy of their homes. But 'red light' districts bring a class of clientele, as well as those who would control that business, and that has spinoffs which can seriously impact a neighborhood and the quality of life there for others. It is those associated associates and behaviours which cause public problems, not the individual acts of one individual (or pair of individuals) in private. At that point the impact goes beyond those who engage in an individual act and encroaches on the lives and Rights of those who are not party to that compact.

I don't have objection, for instance to titty bars. We had 'em in an oil boom town. It was the knifings and shootings out back that created a problem for the community, and even though prior to the boom those establishments had operated with an absolute minimum of violence and other crime, they were banned because of the violent behaviour which became associated with them. So, too, does prostitution attract an element of society which just won't behave in a civil fashion, and for that reason it is commonly banned, all other moral reasons aside.

Fair enough, Joe.  But to me thats an argument for regulating it as commerce. 

[libertybele]

This is revisionist history, wishful thinking on the part of a wistful theocrat.  Its very clear from the writings of the founding fathers where their influence came from.  They did not try to hide it.  The Constitution does not mention God at all.  That's not an accident.

Please ... that's a really old worn out argument. They obviously implied religious freedom and the influence of Christianity and moral principles are clearly written into the Constitution.

Further, EACH of the 50 state constitutions mentions God or the Divine at least once.

Reference to God is also stated in our Declaration of Independence; to say that our nation was not founded upon Christian beliefs, morals and principles is hogwash.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

Wrong!

So-called "sin taxes" are justified because these practices usually call for additional police presence due to so many people be ing so passionate about what they are doing.

And when it comes to passionate,there are few people more passionate than compulsive gamblers. It's like being a junkie,and they will do anything and everything they have to do to feed their monkey.

No argument about gamblers, but the house usually takes care of the security. The police serve a small function in picking up the trash, but it has usually been bagged by then.

As for 'sin taxes' while the Government tells us it's bad to smoke, it taxes cigarettes (not much police presence required, really), Billion$.
Not even passionate tobacco users generally create problems requiring a police presence.

Weed, much the same in jurisdictions where it is legal, although the weed tax may pay to eliminate the competition (that isn't taxed), but that's just a revenue protection racket for government.

As for taxing sex, well, they didn't create it, they don't maintain it, they don't put cops at the door (unless they're in line), so what's to tax? And how long will it be until they try that with the 'amateurs'?

If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it. Government as a racket.

If a community decides it doesn't want the problems that arise, and doesn't want to pay for the police to take care of those problems, I think it is within the Rights of those in the community to call for banning that class of behaviour. It won't stop trophy wives from cashing in on their sugar daddies, but everything has limits. There are other places (Like Vegas) where those behaviours will be embraced for the revenue and the licentiousness, and those who want that can live there with all that implies. That's why I'm all for keeping government local  so there are options.

[Hoodat]

The Constitution does not mention God at all.  That's not an accident.

Read the last sentence.

[roamer_1]

The enlightenment ends in communism? What tripe is this?

Indeed it does - In nearly the same breath, two doctrines were held up before Man - One being France's Rights of Man - Conspicuous for it's defining of man's rights by men, leading inevitably to the authors of socialism and eventually communism... It is almost a straight shot.

The other being the Declaration of Independence of the United States which has the rights of Man as being endowed by their Creator, leading to the most liberty driven influence in the West, and in all the world... Because that which Man assigns, men can take away. That which God assigns is already immutable. This is a fundamental distinction between the rise of liberty via England and the US, versus the 'enlightenment'.

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion are intertwined. 

No, they are not.

Practice in your home as you wish but do not impose anything on me.  Even if I live next door, your belief in what is or isn't a sin is not any basis to make laws.  Don't like prostitution? Don't engage in it.  And in return I won't try to ban you from going to a house of worship.

And what of the town and community? What of the laws that govern good grace and justice? Like it or not, the Judeo-Christian Ethic is the very basis of right and wrong - Suffer us cut off from that root, and we will languish, as can be plainly seen in the course of the last fifty years.

The Holy Bible as the basis...should I hurry and make all the graven images I can before its made illegal?

Laugh all you will, but the Bible is the basis for much law, not only here, but in all of Christendom.

[Hoodat]

@Hoodat

It does. It tells me even you know you are unhinged when it comes to sex,and are willing to go to any extreme to justify your biases.

Proof of this is you consensual sex with rape,driving on the wrong side of the road (potential murder),and bank robbery.

Did you forget molesting farm animals?

@sneakypete , you wrongly assumed that I support those things.  I offered no opinion on their merits.  You asked me to define individual liberty.  I did.  If you had asked me to define murder, I could have done so as well.  But it wouldn't mean that I supported every method..

[PeteS in CA]

...  The Constitution does not mention God at all.  That's not an accident.

1. Argument from silence.

2. Try again:

Article VII.

RATIFYING THE CONSTITUTION
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.

In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.