[MMX2010]

Atlanta Man's position has two obvious contradictions.

(1) He wants to live in a socialized, civilized society - because he can't conduct his business in about uncivilized, anti-social society. But he wants the men and women who worker harder than he does to civilize and socialize his society to have absolutely no say in regulating his behavior.

(2) "I am suggesting people be free to do as they wish as long as other are not harmed by their actions directly.“

This is poisoning the well, because Atlanta Man is announcing that he will reject both "indirect harms" and "long-term, many-factor direct harms" before you even argue that these exist. No matter how sophisticated your argument, nor how scientifically supported it is, Atlanta Man is dogmatically closed off from these arguments before you've even made them.

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

(12-28-2017 04:34 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Atlanta Man's position has two obvious contradictions.

(1) He wants to live in a socialized, civilized society - because he can't conduct his business in about uncivilized, anti-social society. But he wants the men and women who worker harder than he does to civilize and socialize his society to have absolutely no say in regulating his behavior.

(2) "I am suggesting people be free to do as they wish as long as other are not harmed by their actions directly.“

This is poisoning the well, because Atlanta Man is announcing that he will reject both "indirect harms" and "long-term, many-factor direct harms" before you even argue that these exist. No matter how sophisticated your argument, nor how scientifically supported it is, Atlanta Man is dogmatically closed off from these arguments before you've even made them.

The only way we will return to the kind of strict public morals many of us would like to see is by an authoritarian government forcing us to do so. American culture once had a common consensus towards moral behavior, virginity until marriage for men and women, lifelong marriage, and all of that, and so did all the other western cultures. However, that is gone. The only way it will ever come back is by force, and any attempt at doing so would result in bloody civil war.

You could say that it is possible after a societal collapse to a sufficient depth, followed by a cultural reboot, but this is at least as problematic as the authoritarian solution. Atlanta Man's solution is to provide consequences for bad behavior, but letting this be primarily in the realm of social disapproval rather than government regulation. I agree with this. Prostitution is not going away. Heavy handed governmental attempts to the contrary will not change this.

Now I am all in favor of harsh penalties for true trafficking and forced prostitution. However, pretending that every voluntary prostitute has been trafficked is not going to help the actual victims of trafficking. Let the law enforcement people make a realistic distinction between the two, so they can address the forced trafficking effectively.

[Cane Toad]

Try working in a northern Australian or Pacific community that has been impacted by alcohol, drugs and prostitution.

Sure, the men can drink themselves stupid or all day and gamble all their money away. It's their money, right?

Now I'm not about get to start preaching here...but it's hard not to see the need for govt policy intervention in some situations.

The hidden problem of unrestrained alcohol, drugs etc is the impact on the children. Kids with alcohol fetal syndrome, babies with STI's, etc.

There's no clear right or wrong answers, but one's perspective certainly changes once you see the impact of zero restraints.

[MMX2010]

RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:

Atlanta Man's solution is to provide consequences for bad behavior, but letting this be primarily in the realm of social disapproval rather than government regulation. I agree with this.

He doesn't really believe this. Or, if he does believe this, he doesn't understand what he's advocating for.

I think Leonard (in over 6000 words) delineated why Atlanta Man was wrong, but I can do so in less than 300.

(1) The kind of societies where social disapproval is so powerful that judges, lawyers, and government is unnecessary have ONLY BEEN Frontier Towns, like 1800s Arizona. There are many reasons that such places don't exist anymore, (which I won't discuss).

(2) Those societies have always been highly racially homogenous, with racial minorities "enjoying" significantly fewer political rights.

(3) Scott Adams argues that Social Media will create a utopia of well-behaved people, and he cited A Liberal Getting Fired for saying she had no sympathy for the Las Vegas Shooting victims b/c they were Trump supporters AND A White Dude Getting Fired for attending a Richard Spencer rally as proof that this will work in a non-partisan way.

But politicians and corporations already have massive social media influence, and we know you can't trust them.

So you're both advocating for things you don't understand, because you don't understand them.

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

(12-28-2017 05:03 PM)Cane Toad Wrote:  

Try working in a northern Australian or Pacific community that has been impacted by alcohol, drugs and prostitution.

Sure, the men can drink themselves stupid or all day and gamble all their money away. It's their money, right?

Now I'm not about get to start preaching here...but it's hard not to see the need for govt policy intervention in some situations.

The hidden problem of unrestrained alcohol, drugs etc is the impact on the children. Kids with alcohol fetal syndrome, babies with STI's, etc.

There's no clear right or wrong answers, but one's perspective certainly changes once you see the impact of zero restraints.

How would you realistically achieve a government solution that honestly corrects this situation in Northern Australia? My guess is that no feasible solution exists, and even if it did, no political consensus exists to implement it.

[JackinMelbourne]

(12-26-2017 11:34 PM)Eugenics Wrote:  

Government agencies need more funding to specifically stop those assholes. Human traffickers are the lowest lifeforms on this planet IMO.

Although it's not quite as extreme, I don't have much respect for companies who sponsor people on working Visas and pay them minimum wage because they have leverage... while locking out locals from getting work.

There's also straight up slave labour going on that is rarely talked about. A well known situation is North Vietnamese slave "workers" being shipped into Poland for construction projects, while their handlers keep the cash... and Chinese tailors being paid far below minimum wage in Australia for "Australian Made" tailored clothing.

But apologies for going off topic, back to the sex trafficking...

[Cane Toad]

(12-28-2017 05:25 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  

How would you realistically achieve a government solution that honestly corrects this situation in Northern Australia? My guess is that no feasible solution exists, and even if it did, no political consensus exists to implement it.

Sadly, this is true. Many attempts have been made - banning alcohol has only resulted in petrol sniffing and home brewing, removing kids from the risk of sexual abuse has only resulted in those kids being abused by the people who were supposed to care for them etc

The only suggestion I can offer is for all parties to have the will to keep looking for an answer.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(12-28-2017 11:49 AM)mpr Wrote:  

...
No one here advocates legalizing slavery. If human trafficking is a concern you should be pro-legalization. It drives the criminal element out of the business, the girls get checked for STD's, and actually have to pay taxes on their earnings. Not to mention scarce law enforcement resources can be used to go after slavers instead of persecuting consenting adults. Not to mention leverage that women have in the dating market plummets when anyone can get laid by a 9 or 10 for a few dollars.
...

Libertarians keep saying this but crime keeps trending regardless.

THOTs who've made such poor life choices that despite their good looks they have to play with a thousand strange ding-dongs for their yearly salary are not going to pay taxes or get checked for STDs.

What, you think if they find out they have AIDS they're going to advise their clients first or go back to school?

Appalachia is riddled with trade in black market pharma opiates simply because the low-IQ gutter class is too lazy and stupid to get themselves a reliable legal pipeline, even when it's cheaper in the long run than buying the shit from the back of Cleetus' pickup.

I swear, Libertarians need to spend some actual face-time in the ghettos and see the ass-backward way these morons conduct their lives. Spend some time with a cop that works these areas and ask them, beg them, to explain why these buffoons live their lives the way they live them. Why some moron would violate parole to steal a packet of cheetos when he had enough money in his pocket to pay for them. Why some human trash would risk their life and their freedom selling drugs when their hours and profits are no different working legitimately as a night guard at a construction site who sits on his ass and does nothing at all.

Watch a few seasons of cops, for god's sake, before you preach the idea that criminality has anything whatsoever to do with common men yearning to be free to live their life the way they choose.

It's a running joke. If you legalised weed and made broccoli illegal then street trash would start dealing and smoking broccoli. A street broccoli culture would emerge and in time trendy liberal college students would be wearing t-shirts with pictures of broccoli on them while talking about how the man has no right to stop people growing and using this ancient herb as they see fit. People would lament that the jails are filled with fundamentally innocent men perpetrating victimless crimes, and if you legalised brocolli and pardoned them then the next day they would find something else illegal to do and get locked up for that instead, because that's the whole point.

Most prostitutes do not choose to become prostitutes. They fail to choose any of the thousands of legitimate choices that will stop them falling to the lowest rungs of society.

Google Crocodil for fucks sake. People put that shit in themselves voluntarily. And when they turn up in an emergency room with "mysterious symptoms" who do you think will be paying for their treatment?"

[Cane Toad]

delete

[Cane Toad]

delete

[TooFineAPoint]

I've lived in Whitechapel, London (hint for those who've never been, it should be re-named BrownMosque), and worked downtown in Vancouver on a nightshift (next to area with highest rate of Hep-C in the western world). So hopefully that counts towards my ghetto cred.

Toothless crack whores and heroin junkies who smash any car window they find are night and day different from Calgary oil execs who do blow or 8s who occasionally suck some dick for a new purse.

Whether or not these things are legal has nothing to do with some people's high time preference or lack of self control.

And I may be wrong (historians can chime in), but it seems like slavery and prostitution were fairly prevalent in past, shall we say "decidedly non libertarian", societies.

The very slippery slope to saying "most prostitutes do not choose to become prostitutes" leads to the idea that "most Starbucks workers do not choose to serve coffee, most business owners do not choose to fail, most wives do not choose to become bored with their husbands".

This is not to make light of anyone's perceived failure or hardship of life. I don't wish that on anyone, but I accept that we all will feel it to greater or lesser degrees.

Surely caring about it to some extent is the hallmark of a civil society (another loaded term, I suppose). But my obligation to care about it and do something about it, and what that something should be... surely that should be left up to me? Or if you think not, what sort of convincing argument do you have?

[MMX2010]

TooFineAPoint Wrote:

Surely caring about it to some extent is the hallmark of a civil society (another loaded term, I suppose). But my obligation to care about it and do something about it, and what that something should be... surely that should be left up to me? Or if you think not, what sort of convincing argument do you have?

It should be left up to you, if and only if, you've demonstrated the ability to care about others. Otherwise, you're demanding people to care about you, when you can't care about them.

[puckerman]

(12-28-2017 04:50 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  

The only way we will return to the kind of strict public morals many of us would like to see is by an authoritarian government forcing us to do so. American culture once had a common consensus towards moral behavior, virginity until marriage for men and women, lifelong marriage, and all of that, and so did all the other western cultures. However, that is gone. The only way it will ever come back is by force, and any attempt at doing so would result in bloody civil war.

Taking subsidies away from illegitimacy would be a big help. It would also help if changed laws regarding divorce and child support. This could all be done without an authoritarian government.

It does, however, remind me of why so-called conservatives do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to get rid of the welfare state. They actually want an authoritarian government, and they can use the welfare state to rationalize that.

Here is a long list of conservative bromides:

"We can't legalize illicit drugs as long as we have a welfare state."
"We can't have open borders as long as we have a welfare state."
"We can't deregulate medicines as long as we have a welfare state."
"We can't do this as long as we have a welfare state."

It's no wonder that conservatives love the welfare state. They can use it to rationalize all kinds of controls that they actually want.

Quote:

Now I am all in favor of harsh penalties for true trafficking and forced prostitution. However, pretending that every voluntary prostitute has been trafficked is not going to help the actual victims of trafficking. Let the law enforcement people make a realistic distinction between the two, so they can address the forced trafficking effectively.

If prostitution was fully legalized, other people would be more willing to report trafficking. A man could call police and say, "Hello, police. I was with a prostitute. I found out that she was kidnapped and brought here against her will." Under the current system of criminalized prostitution, nobody reports anything.

It's the same way that teenagers say it's easier to buy marijuana than it is to buy beer. Pot dealers don't ask for ID.

[puckerman]

(12-28-2017 11:13 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Appalachia is riddled with trade in black market pharma opiates simply because the low-IQ gutter class is too lazy and stupid to get themselves a reliable legal pipeline, even when it's cheaper in the long run than buying the shit from the back of Cleetus' pickup.

I was born and raised in Appalachia. I am there right now. My state leads all 50 in drug overdoses.

Many of these people are buying drugs legally. The doctors write the prescriptions, and they buy them from the drug stores. The drugs may go on the black market after that. But big pharma and their stores (CVS and Walgreens) are making most of the profit.

I am old enough to remember all the factories that were here in the 1970's. I remember the glass factories, and we still have the stuff that my grandfather got from his workplace--beautiful glassware that nobody in China could match. We've seen the steel mills close. We've seen the coal mines shut down. We've seen many other industrial sites become empty shells.

People turn to addictive drugs because they are in pain. They are in pain because they have no hope. I can't blame them for not having any hope.

My brother worked as a deputy sheriff. A distant cousin of mine was a deputy sheriff. Another distant cousin of mine is in a long-term relationship with a state police officer. A boy who grew up next door to my parents is now a social worker. My father was a good friend of several sheriffs.

Give the people career opportunities, and they will respond very well to that. These problems didn't exist 60 years ago because there were career opportunities.

[placer]

(12-28-2017 11:49 AM)mpr Wrote:  

leverage that women have in the dating market plummets when anyone can get laid by a 9 or 10 for a few dollars.

This alone is why I support legalized prostitution. And this is why radical feminists oppose legal prostitution. The agenda of radical feminism is to legitimize extramarital sex (by calling people who want sex to only be an marriage act "slut shamers"), but to suppress male expressions of sexuality. Natural escalation with a woman is now called "sexual harassment" or "rape" -- a perverse redefinition of a word which used to mean something very different. Men who are sexually attracted to women are "creeps." And, yes, these feminists want to keep prostitution illegal because that's a way many men express their sexuality.

I want prostitution to be legal because it will reduce the number of white knights who will support this perverse radical feminist ideology.

And, yes, if we were in a society where "no sex before marriage" and "no divorce" still meant something, I would oppose prostitution. But not in today's sexually promiscuous society.

[porscheguy]

Prostitution was legal just about everywhere up until 1920 when women got the right to vote. There were times prior to this when the local governments would intervene when prostitution related problems were causing issues in the community. During WW1, the feds had to prohibit soldiers in New Orleans from visiting brothels due to rampant syphilis and clap. But the real change came politicians could curry favor with women VOTERS by promising to shut down the brothels. Prior to that, it was an industry that did a good job regulating itself.

I'll give a shout out to puckerman for pointing out the real cause of rampant drug use in Appalachia. It's the economy (or lack of one) that drives the problem. Not everyone is as resilient as you. We had a thread on the opium epidemic that I believe touched on this fact. But what I will disagree on is the legal means of procuring opiates. The governments have been shutting down overprescribing docs for a few years now. The docs still doing it are playing with fire. I'd expect within 1-3 years, it will be very hard to get more than 1-2 weeks of prescription opioids.

The current method of combating prostitution is a failure. Just as the current method of combating drug abuse is a failure. If I drive up to Wilkins Ave in Baltimore tonight, I'll see streetwalkers and possibly a few cops making arrests. Many of them will plea out in a few days and be right back on the streets. What was solved?

I think most people in the sex work industry would prefer to see it decriminalized rather than made legal and regulated. We've seen that the legal prostitution venues in Nevada have done nothing to curb the illegal market. All they've done is allow a select few people to gain a monopoly on the legal brothels. It's just like ending prohibition but only permitting alcohol distribution by a select handful of people. Yet there are still plenty of places in the country where you don't have to look far to find moonshine.

Like puckerman said even earlier, things like trafficking would be reported if a guy could go to the cops and say "I was at a brothel, and the girl told me she was trafficked." The whores won't go to the cops and say "I had a john fuck me in the ass at gunpoint and then he stole my money." It seems some people here think the whore is the bigger problem than the guy ripping them off. The guy who rips off whores will also try to rob you if no whores are out. If you decriminalize it, you can regulate it by doing "wellness checks" on the whores. You can nudge them over to certain neighborhoods or industrial areas. By checking in and making sure they're OK you eliminate the adversarial relationship and facilitate one with some level of trust. And whores see a lot of shit on the streets. They know where the drugs are. They know who's pushing shit that's heavy on fentanyl. They know who the gangbangers are, and which ones are extorting regular people in the neighborhood.

People can argue this won't work, to which I would respond, "what's your plan?" Because the current methods don't work. Prostitution didn't become the world's oldest profession by being possible to eliminate.

[Atlanta Man]

(12-28-2017 04:34 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Atlanta Man's position has two obvious contradictions.

(1) He wants to live in a socialized, civilized society - because he can't conduct his business in about uncivilized, anti-social society. But he wants the men and women who worker harder than he does to civilize and socialize his society to have absolutely no say in regulating his behavior.

(2) "I am suggesting people be free to do as they wish as long as other are not harmed by their actions directly.“

This is poisoning the well, because Atlanta Man is announcing that he will reject both "indirect harms" and "long-term, many-factor direct harms" before you even argue that these exist. No matter how sophisticated your argument, nor how scientifically supported it is, Atlanta Man is dogmatically closed off from these arguments before you've even made them.

I work very fucking hard and sometimes I put in 80 hour weeks and contribute more than most people to society-and you are right I do not want men, and certainly not women, regulating my private behavior. I put up with enough shit maintaining my various licenses and believe me when I say I resent the infringement on my lifestyle. Furthermore I am a goddamn adult and do not need to be told how to live my life by some moral busybody. I have had to deal with multiple licencing boards going through my personal life with fine comb judging every aspect of my past and that shit was no fucking fun and the cocksuckers doing it relished their power over my livelihood-they were smug fuckers and I wanted to kill them, and I could have done it with my bare hands.

When you legislate morality you give the state a blank check into fucking with your life-the state only exists to perpetuate itself, and they rarely relinquish power once they have it. There is no reason for drugs or prostitution to be illegal, it is my body-true freedom is the right to do what you want with your body.

You cite "indirect harms" and "long-term, many-factor direct harms"-what do you call millions in prison for nonviolent offences, pervasive corruption and dishonesty within our narcotics police officers, ongoing violence related to criminalization of vice, and billions wasted on the "war on drugs"which is really a war on our fellow Americans.

If you really want to legislate morality and police peoples private lives then understand you are pushing for an authoritarian state-think of the kind of people that attracts, do you really want them having a say so over your private life?

[Atlanta Man]

(12-28-2017 05:24 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:

Atlanta Man's solution is to provide consequences for bad behavior, but letting this be primarily in the realm of social disapproval rather than government regulation. I agree with this.

He doesn't really believe this. Or, if he does believe this, he doesn't understand what he's advocating for.

I think Leonard (in over 6000 words) delineated why Atlanta Man was wrong, but I can do so in less than 300.

(1) The kind of societies where social disapproval is so powerful that judges, lawyers, and government is unnecessary have ONLY BEEN Frontier Towns, like 1800s Arizona. There are many reasons that such places don't exist anymore, (which I won't discuss).

(2) Those societies have always been highly racially homogenous, with racial minorities "enjoying" significantly fewer political rights.

(3) Scott Adams argues that Social Media will create a utopia of well-behaved people, and he cited A Liberal Getting Fired for saying she had no sympathy for the Las Vegas Shooting victims b/c they were Trump supporters AND A White Dude Getting Fired for attending a Richard Spencer rally as proof that this will work in a non-partisan way.

But politicians and corporations already have massive social media influence, and we know you can't trust them.

So you're both advocating for things you don't understand, because you don't understand them.

What the actual fuck-I totally understand what I advocate. I am advocating getting the government out of my personal fucking life. It boggles my mind that you are so fucking eager to involve government bureaucrats into your personal life. Seriously, when has the government ever made your life better?Please explain how having the government actively policing you personal life is a good thing. I am in my fucking 40's , I don't need anyone telling me how to live my life.

[Kapanda]

(12-30-2017 02:08 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

do you really want them having a say so over your private life?

Fuck. No.

[StrikeBack]

(12-28-2017 11:49 AM)mpr Wrote:  

leverage that women have in the dating market plummets when anyone can get laid by a 9 or 10 for a few dollars.

9s and 10s don't prostitute themselves out for a few dollars, they do it for millions ++.

(12-29-2017 09:23 PM)placer Wrote:  

I want prostitution to be legal because it will reduce the number of white knights who will support this perverse radical feminist ideology.

Sounds good in theory, not supported by evidence. Prostitution has been legal in Australia since forever, but the guys here are among the worst soy white knights for feminism. I'm sure it's also legal in Canada as well, hasn't helped them at all.

I'm actually for legalising it because it does make the streets safer. I feel much safer walking past brothel areas in Australian cities than similar ones overseas where it's illegal.

[Laner]

(12-30-2017 05:15 AM)StrikeBack Wrote:  

(12-28-2017 11:49 AM)mpr Wrote:  

leverage that women have in the dating market plummets when anyone can get laid by a 9 or 10 for a few dollars.

9s and 10s don't prostitute themselves out for a few dollars, they do it for millions ++.

(12-29-2017 09:23 PM)placer Wrote:  

I want prostitution to be legal because it will reduce the number of white knights who will support this perverse radical feminist ideology.

Sounds good in theory, not supported by evidence. Prostitution has been legal in Australia since forever, but the guys here are among the worst soy white knights for feminism. I'm sure it's also legal in Canada as well, hasn't helped them at all.

I'm actually for legalising it because it does make the streets safer. I feel much safer walking past brothel areas in Australian cities than similar ones overseas where it's illegal.

Its legal to sell sex in Canada, but not legal to purchase it. So only the Johns get busted essentially.

Since the internet brothels have just moved online. Its still shady here, and once every few years a Madame gets busted with a bunch of illegal 'students' in her mansion.

We had a guy, Robert Pickton, who may have murdered up to 200 prostitutes in the early 2000's. This did nothing to change the way we deal with the purchase of sex. I remember thinking at the time, "Now maybe these women will get a safe place to go ply their trade". Nope. They still walked up and down Francis St at night. I lived only a couple blocks away at the time, and I could feel the fear out there on the street. Women were trying to use buddy systems, they were looking out for each other, and yet they were still disappearing. Brutal time and a testament to leaders and their weakness to any real help. Instead they made the purchase of sex illegal.

[Atlanta Man]

I totally loser beta males to control my sex life. I have have an epiphany. No more interracial first date sex.

[Higgs Bosun]

I don't often agree with Atlanta Man but I fully do on this issue. Keep your stinking, filthy hands out of my business! Look at this forum. There are few more self-selected communities than RVF, yet even here there are no two members who fully agree with each other on every single major issue, let alone the infinity of minor ones. Despite this being first and foremost a game forum, there is a significant minority of men here who would like to tax single men with no children to financial ruin while denying them the government benefits paid for by those taxes, and this is just one of many examples where we stand at odds with each other. You can extrapolate this to society at large and ponder at how fucked things would get if your personal behavior was dictated by the cunts and cucks out there more than it is already.

Clearly, since we're all unique special snowflakes with strong opinions on how we want to live our lives and a low tolerance for accepting other people's bullshit, we should be in favor of a minimally intrusive central authority. This is an imperfect world so some such authority is obviously necessary, but it should be minimized to the highest extent possible. Legislating morality and personal behavior should be complete anathema to us, not only because of who would likely be doing the legislating, but also because even if that person were a paragon of manly virtue, we'd still be chafing at the neck against the resulting limitations placed on our lives.

I hear the arguments about needing to control people's lives so that we continue to maintain a stable and orderly society and I'm completely unconvinced. Don't get me wrong, we definitely need the strong Pimp Hand of authority to keep people in check, but only when their behavior starts intruding on others. In other words, keep drinking yourself to death asshole, but if you show up to the ER with no cash and no insurance, the policy is no longer making society pay your bill via EMTALA but rather implementing a new policy: CPGA (Can't Pay? Go Away!) High on crack or meth? Great, so long as you stay in your shit hovel, but venture outside and cause a public nuisance and you'll be detoxing in the hard confines of a low cost and even lower amenity jail cell. "If he dies, he dies."

We can have our cake and eat it too. High tolerance for all sorts of private behaviors can be tempered with Iranian level intolerance the second someone feels like burdening society with the negative externalities of their dysfunctional behavior. Who gives a fuck if a druggie overdoses on heroin and dies? Society is better off by good old addition by subtraction. The problem doesn't occur when an asshole starts using heroin, nor does it occur when the asshole overdoses on heroin and dies. The problem occurs when the state steps in and resuscitates the motherfucker at public expense. That last part is an eminently avoidable problem that requires very little money and costs us absolutely no freedom, and can be extrapolated and applied to many scenarios besides druggies. I'd much rather we maintain a stable society by draconian callousness to people's bad choices than by draconian control of people's behavior in a futile attempt to prevent them from making those choices.