Consenting adults exchanging money for sex - should it be illegal?

Assuming your summation above is correct - which is doubtful - you think the proper role of government is to facilitate "respect for the opposite gender" ??

 

Is it that all hoes would have to be sole proprietors? Nobody could run brothels or services in the way that nearly all other legalized prostitution is conducted?

 

Would you kindly explain this? Thank you.

 

"Pimping" connotes a coercive relationship, hence the disappearance of consent. Agency and management imply consensual agreements, hence no problems there.

 

For my cents on this matter, I think governments are sensitive to the sex trade. It's the KPI of an economy that's been struggling for such an extended time that their women are predominantly whores by trade. For many women -girls- born in poor countries, this is the default profession. First-world countries can't displace this with alternative work alone, so they outlaw it.

After effect: embarrassment on the world stage.

 

But is that the proper role of government in a nation of free men?

 

It's democratic people are free to legalize/criminalize prostitution through the law.

The US is a nation of the rule of law, not 'of free men'. The idea is that such rule leaves 'good' freedoms in possession of the citizenry. We tend to be able to vote for this stuff, very few jurisdictions in the US have made prostitution game.

 

I agree with this. The second part of this features in the reply someone else made to your question - I kinda jumped in there - it was some diatribe about the morality of sex. In a democratic system like ours 'vices' are made illegal because people want the government to maintain a moral standard that matches their own, even if it means more human trafficking and disease.

There would arguably be some moral decay if prostitution was plied with the same American commercial gusto that made Mattel all that dough at the expense of little girls. It's not a federal issue is it?

 

Ah, but what is the stated purpose of that rule of law? Is it to assuage the pangs of the majority? The whim of we petty tyrants? Or is it to preserve and protect life, liberty, and property? We operate as a society under the presumption that we are in fact free men. If that be the case, we ought to be very careful in our deliberations to be sure we're not simply enacting legislation that makes us "feel good." Franklin said "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." He also added, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. I don't think free men need a government nanny.

 

These are certainly the hazards. Thankfully the laxness of enforcement is one of the ways that we have this personal level of freedom. Freedom is inherent, however, the purpose of the social compact is specifically to do as Franklin's quoted: to purchase safeties. As someone who won't care much what prostitution laws we have, this particular matter's neither here nor there. I don't think we'd be a democracy if we were an autocracy of freedom, however.

Enforcement of prostitution laws is really bad and nearly impossible outside of stings done on .001% percent of the trade (missing a zero or two?). This is another way we keep Franklin resting on his back, notwithstanding that most people don't want whorehouses in their city.

 

I like the comparison to weed for its democratic upheaval. I guess the same thing happened with drink back in the day. No doubt, industrial pressures played a role in both of these. While Nevada has a pimp-lobby, I am not sure if there's such a thing as NORML to push whoring into public policy. Like you point out: woe betide a pro-whore politician. We're not taliban, but we've got droves of voting moral police.

 

So how far are you willing to take "what most of the people want" as a means for law?

 

Hence my point. Careful what you wish for, I guess.

 

only a loser would have to pay a women for sex..if you treat women with kindness and respect you should have no problem finding a great girl to have a wonderful relationship with..

 

This goes to the extent that the constitution allows, then that's interpreted by our Supreme Court. I'm ok with taking things this far. This system works really well. If alcohol was prohibited again, I'd take it as far as voting that law back out of existence. Personally, I would just break a law that prohibited alcohol. I think that's what people do with prostitution.

 

Very true. Forgot about porn in this context. To think it's saved the day. The paradox/contradiction comes from internet porn never having been made illegal, granted our day and age. If there was a fast-forward to the present back when prohibition of prostitution came en vogue, we probably wouldn't have so many bans. Rolling back the law is a whole different monster that does take lots of people and political allies.

Congressmen seem into prostitutes, this may not be so far fetched.

 

The operative words her being have to. Its not that you have to but its far less involved an no strings attached. Not everyone is looking for love or a relationship. Thats the point.

 

I agree. However, that has absolutely zero relevance to this topic.

 

None of what you just said is true. A man could be the kindest, most respectful person on the planet, but misunderstood, or ugly, and his chances of getting laid, let alone having a functional relation ship, are slim to none. I have known such people, and I think it would be nice for them to be able rent happiness if they can't afford to own it.

 

How about light bulbs? Do you think free men should be told by their government what kind of light bulbs they can buy? What about sodmy laws? Should the USSC get involved in the style and manner free consenting adults have sexual relations? There are many places where "what most of the people want" is absolute suppression of legal rights for homosexuals. You're OK with this, I assume as well. Here in California, "what most of the people want" are cities that flout federal law and refuse to cooperate with authorities with regard to immigration laws. Also, apparently we want a literal decimation of the 2nd Amendment (and a good deal of the First). In my view, tyranny of the majority is just as tyrannical as tyranny of a single despot.

 

You have only yourself to blame for that, seeing you're the one apparently on a mission to bugger up the conversation with a shipload of irrelevant drivel.

By all indications I'm aware of, you're not in good company.

At the moment, I couldn't care less.