And how about the poor prostitutes, always being hassled over back taxes.

Next they’ll probably make prostitution mandatory on the theory that the city needs more revenue.

It’s really funny how the people on here for legalizing it use the arguement that the government shouldn’t be involved in peoples private lives. Then they talk about licensing it and taxing it and the government regulating it.

Libertarians are just liberals who are honest about not wanting to pay taxes.

peacenprosperity on July 20, 2008 at 5:34 PM

I haven’t met a Libertarian who wants registration for prostitutes. Libertarians are merely classically conservatives (i.e. wanting government out of people’s lives) If wanting the government out of as many aspects of your lives as possible is ‘liberal’ then I have been supporting the wrong causes all these years.

I couldn’t care less if the legalized prostitution. There is no difference between paying a prostitute $50 for sex and spending $50 on drinks at a nightclub for a girl ‘looking for fun’ and having sex with her for 1 night only; which happens a million times a day.
The whore or the bar skank can have STD’s and a prostitute doing it for a living is more likely to take care of herself to keep her business in shape.

That said, SF once again goes about it in the dumbest way possible.

My ideas for legalizing another victim less crime is for public safety. Making it illegal isn’t working.

ThackerAgency on July 20, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Judging from your past comments, I thought your worldview would make it impossible for you to think prostitution is a victim-less crime.

Prostitution is not a victim-less crime.

It’s really funny how the people on here for legalizing it use the arguement that the government shouldn’t be involved in peoples private lives. Then they talk about licensing it and taxing it and the government regulating it.

Libertarians are just liberals who are honest about not wanting to pay taxes.
peacenprosperity on July 20, 2008 at 5:34 PM

I have wrestled with Libertarianism a lot in the past. It has a lot of attractive features to it.

I disagree with it.

Libertarianism is ultimately dependent on a particular worldview and also an Ethical Philosophy.

It assumes a lot of “value-assumptions” towards government(i.e., ethical positions of the normative type) while at the same time professing that government should stay out of the value-assumption business.

Why have humans invented ‘marriage’?

Which will, perhaps, lead you to the idea of creating a stable society. Which will, I hope, persuade you that legalizing prostitution will destabilize society by incrementally dismantling restrictions on behavior, and incrementally dismantling the purpose of ‘marriage’.

rockhauler on July 20, 2008 at 4:48 PM

I think you are right.

George Gilder and others
have noted the fine points you have brought up, hence the rational need for traditional laws against prostitution…

And there are negative economic consequences emananting from the absence of these laws…

All prurient curiosity aside, this vote could present an interesting political challenge for Californians. If the state lets this stand, where does its sovereignty end, or even begin?
Captain Ed

Excellent point.

You forgot the most important thing:
-No Christians allowed or tolerated.

newton on July 20, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Is there such a glorious place?
muyoso on July 20, 2008 at 2:53 PM

China. North Korea. Yemen and Pakistan might be up there as well.

You have sex with a prostitute not because you want to make her feel good, earn income. The side effects of engaging the prostitute are well documented, that is the harm that results.rockhauler on July 20, 2008 at 4:24 PM

Excellent point.

I believe Plato and others talked about the need to encourage virtue ethics in society, in part, to prevent the maddening descent into Socialism and mobocracy that naturally results when character and morality are divorced from public policy.

Fun Wired article from a few years back:They’re supposed to be hellish wastelands. But some of the sinister netherworlds found in books, movies, and videogames seem pretty cool. Sex, drugs, kick-ass weapons, fly rides – where do we sign up?Number……

Seriously, why is anyone opposed to two consenting adults engaging in a transaction?

Bill C on July 20, 2008 at 12:34 PM

Because I think the topic of this thread is immoral. And I believe the State does not have a compelling interest to sanction and encourage immoral behavior.

Only insane democraps could rationalize that the above is a legitimate exercise of power. Moving from a representative republic to a pure democracy will lead to chaos. Mob rule.

Zorro on July 20, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Your good comment reminded me of the excellent points made in this book. Once I understood the author’s points, I relinquished any prior thoughts I had for a “pure democracy”.

I’d feel a lot safer if it were legalized and regulated. The state could tax it too. The laws aren’t going to stop the ‘world’s oldest profession’. . . but the government could work to regulate it to prevent transmission of diseases and such.
ThackerAgency on July 20, 2008 at 1:07 PM

I understand that you are adopting an argument rooted in pragmatic concerns.

But…could another person likewise embrace your pragmatic reasoning and approach a different issue, say, illegal immigration, and argue the same way, “well, we will always have illegal immigration due to Visa Overstays, therefore, the best thing is to just regulate it, have them pay a fine, give them amnesty, etc…..”

Note:

I have enjoyed reading your comments in the past. I am aware of your worldview. My comment is only directed at your Pragmatic Approach here.

And even more for political whores trying to leech off the backs of the unfortunate.

Couldn’t happen to a more deserving state.

The problem is not going away no matter what we do.

Yep, prostitution, just like poverty, will always exist. No issue here.

That said there will always be unclean ho’s running around as a public health risk. I say lets try to eliminate the health risk.

Health risk to whom? It’s not bothering me any. Whether or not someone has AIDS, syphilis, or chlamydia has no bearing on my life. So long as blood is tested before blood transfusions, I don’t much mind.

If that requires whores’s/sluts to be registered/tested then I am all for it.

Who would require testing? How often? Unless you require testing of all parties involved, men and women, before every act with a new partner, then calls for testing are pointless in terms of preventing the spread of STDs. Again, I don’t have a problem with any of this. Prostitutes and their pimps can chalk this up to the cost of doing business. My whole issue stems from asking the taxpayer to cover the bill or requiring my kids to get tested as part of a societal effort for cleansing our population of STDs.

For the record I don’t need to “pay for it”.
[sarc] The “supply of women I can use/abuse and then loose” is plentiful in my area. [/sarc]
F15Mech on July 20, 2008 at 9:26 PM

With every jest, there is a hint of truth. Are you suggesting that the taxes collected from such “business” will cover the future medical bills, welfare for the prostitute and his/her children, WIC, more public housing I presume, etc.? That’s like saying the taxes paid by a smoker for cigarettes will cover their cancer treatments. My money is needed elsewhere besides paying for more of another’s stupid decisions.

Then you can pay for it. The reality is that if you are promiscuous, then you are likely to get an STD. If a person is that worried about it, then they can get insurance. Don’t come crying to the taxpayers, though. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
Send_Me on July 20, 2008 at 8:31 PM

You missed my point. Allow me explain again…

Pain and simple hocker’s will always be around (They have been around since biblical times).

The problem is not going away no matter what we do.

That said there will always be unclean ho’s running around as a public health risk.

I say lets try to eliminate the health risk.

If that requires whores’s/sluts to be registered/tested then I am all for it.

BTW

For the record I don’t need to “pay for it”.

[sarc] The “supply of women I can use/abuse and then loose” is plentiful in my area. [/sarc]

@ newton on July 20, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Is there such a glorious place?

muyoso on July 20, 2008 at 2:53 PM

North Korea.

aengus on July 20, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Heh! Thank You! :-)

But in case you guys don’t want to believe me, Google at least two things. “Teen Challenge San Francisco 2006″ and “Sand Francisco City Council resolution condemning the Catholic Church 2008.”

You will then not be surprised if San Francisco invests in hungry lions the next time Christians show up in full force…

The only problem with hookers in San Francisco is that unless they are gay prostitutes they will have no business.

In the age of deadly illnesses like AIDS, I am actually for legalizing prostitutes as long as it requires a routine (say monthly) health check.
F15Mech on July 20, 2008 at 7:41 PM

Then you can pay for it. The reality is that if you are promiscuous, then you are likely to get an STD. If a person is that worried about it, then they can get insurance. Don’t come crying to the taxpayers, though. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. I honestly do not care about the nation’s AIDS problem. A promiscuous or drug-using person makes the choice, and they can deal with that choice’s consequences, whether that be a child or an STD.

And the police work hard to keep it out of the “less desirable areas” as you label them because people who are not affluent have the right to live in crime free neighborhoods, too. Prostitution attracts gangs who like to rob them. No one wants to walk down the street looking at used condoms. People in less desirable areas also own homes and are not thrilled by seeing their property values plummet because of prostitution.

Blake on July 20, 2008 at 6:34 PM

Acutally the police sometimes push it into less desireable areas. It has happened repeatedly over the centuries in New York City–as a neighborhood gets more affluent or prosperous the hookers get “relocated”. Specifically, I recall a few years ago having an office a few blocks from Bryant Park. The street had a couple of drug dealers and hookers. One of the drug dealers told me that he used to work in Bryant Park but after it was renovated Giuliani told the cops to clean it up. Whereupon the cops told the drug dealers and hookers to move a few blocks away and they wouldn’t be hassled.

@ newton on July 20, 2008 at 2:41 PM

Is there such a glorious place?

muyoso on July 20, 2008 at 2:53 PM

North Korea.

Posing another trollish question;

Why have humans invented ‘marriage’?

Which will, perhaps, lead you to the idea of creating a stable society. Which will, I hope, persuade you that legalizing prostitution will destabilize society by incrementally dismantling restrictions on behavior, and incrementally dismantling the purpose of ‘marriage’.

rockhauler on July 20, 2008 at 4:48 PM

You ask really tough questions. I’ve been married for about 5 years and sometimes I wonder why it was invented. I guess it forces my wife and me to be more patient with each other.

More to your point though, I agree that marriage is a stabilizing institution but there are and have been some cultures where marriage is very strong but mistresses are common. The societal importance of marriage has more consistently been about providing a nurturing environment for children and managing wealth than it has been about sexual fidelity.

Hell Mary Magdalene was a ho if I recall my New Testament correctly.

That said…the current laws do not fix the problem (They have not for over 2000 years).

It is a safe bet that we will not rid society of prostitutes any time soon.

In the age of deadly illnesses like AIDS, I am actually for legalizing prostitutes as long as it requires a routine (say monthly) health check.

I don’t see drugs for sale on Craigslist. I don’t see any other ‘illegal activity’ for sale on Craigslist

So if it’s not on craigs list it’s not being done?

I’d like to see how prevalent prostitution is in towns where the johns pictures are put in the newspaper. Prostitution is rampant because the law is not fully enforced. Every once in awhile the police round up a bunch of hookers, book em, give them tickets and send them back out to work. If all you libertarians want it legalized and out of control of the government, why do you keep talking about licensing and rules and regulations?

A quick fact of life; taboos, traditiona, morals, laws all developed out of a need to control stuff because when those behaviors become excessive it is harnful to the greater good. Despite what some would think, women being receptacles for money was not deemed a bad thing a 2500 years ago because everyone was a prude. Homosexuality wasn’t deemed a bad thing because 2500 years ago everyone was homophobic. Knocking up your sister wasn’t deemed bad because 2500 years ago everyone was a religious freak. The consequences of these behaviors are nearly always bad and if they aren’t then the practitioner dodged the bullet. Beliefs, traditions, taboos, morals developed out of real, practical necessity.