The Shotgun Blog
« Libertarian leader takes on Calgary’s traffic law enforcement cameras | Main | The price of freedom is eternal vigilance: Ezra Levant »
Friday, May 01, 2009
Civil libertarians call for sex worker rights. Is it time to legalize prostitution?
Ever since the lovely and talented Ashley “Spit-zer Swallows” Dupre brought down degenerate anti-capitalist crusader and corporate governance zealot Eliot Spitzer, disgraced former Governor of New York, I’ve developed a soft spot for prostitutes.
Don’t misunderstand me. Prostitution is no doubt a pernicious vice to be avoided, but prohibiting consensual acts is positively criminal, philosophically speaking. Prostitution may be bad, but prohibiting prostitution is worse by any measure, including concerns for natural justice, law-and-order and public health.
So why not feel sorry for Spitzer, a man whose relationship with prostitute Dupre destroyed his political career? (Spitzer now writes for Slate magazine.) Simple. Spitzer made his career as New York Attorney General turned Governor in part by enforcing prostitution laws without mercy and destroying the lives of those involved with the trade. He could have de-prioritized the enforcement of this so-called crime when he had the authority to do so. Instead, he did the opposite.
This brings me to my news peg. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) is calling for the decriminalization of the sex trade in Vancouver.
The BCCLA wrote a letter to the Premier yesterday in support of the demands of a number of Vancouver advocacy organizations for improved protection of the health and safety of sex workers and the improvement of the conditions in which they typically work.
“Sex work is functionally legal in Vancouver,” said David Eby, Executive Director of the BCCLA. “From the back pages of the Georgia Straight and other publications, to the massage parlours that get business licenses from the City, to the street corners of our industrial areas, our sex industry exists and is not going away. Instead of simply pretending that they do not exist, is it too much to ask that sex workers be covered by health and safety protections?”
The BCCLA has supported the decriminalization and regulation of sex work since at least 1982. It has consistently argued against use of the criminal law to ban activities that are not, in its assessment, harmful to others. The civil liberties organization argues that attempts to legislate the morality of others adversely affects our capacity to form adequate social policies and laws governing sex work.
“The BCCLA’s position is that capable adults should be able to exercise autonomy over their bodies,” said Megan Vis-Dunbar, a board member of the BCCLA. “Danger, coercion and lack of reciprocity are neither essential nor unique to sex work. Nor should anyone assume that individuals would never willingly elect to engage in prostitution.”
You can read more Western Standard coverage of this prostitution controversy here.
Posted by Matthew Johnston
Posted by westernstandard on May 1, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
I do not usually try to split hairs, but a better title would be it is time to decriminalise prostitution rather than to legalise it. Yes, I know that they both result in the same, but using legalise may imply a sense of acceptance. It should simply cease being a crime just as sodomy ceased being a crime - and no, I am not suggesting they are the same.
I find the BCCLA's position disturbing, since they also call for regulation, when the whole point should be to remove the government from private lives.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-05-01 3:45:10 PM
I don't think legalization implies acceptance, Alain, although I'll take a more careful look at how the two terms -- decriminalize and legalize -- differ.
If you remove the prohibition on prostition are you not legalizing prostitution...bringing it within the law? I think so, and that would not imply acceptance.
I'll look into this and get back to you.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-01 3:56:29 PM
Alain,
Actually, decriminalization and legalization imply very different legal outcomes.
Decriminalization of marijuana for example does not imply it's legal. In fact, all decriminalization schemes presented have proposed reducing possession to a summary offence. But that's not legal. It's not a crime. But it's still against the law.
So if you think there should be no prohibition whatsoever, then legalization is the appropriate word.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-01 4:01:06 PM
Matthew, like I said I know the end result is the same and that it is a question of nuance. I see it much like calling a tax rebate a tax cut, but I can accept that others see no difference.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-05-01 4:06:31 PM
If you decriminalize prositution, expect more of it, and more of the exploitation associated with it.
And "sex" is not "work".
Posted by: SUZANNE | 2009-05-01 4:39:43 PM
Mike, I am coming at this from the old traditional English Common Law approach, but I shall not argue over nuances. The main point I wish to make is that government has no business in the private lives of consenting adults, which means it should simply be off-limits for government.
For the record I am not pro prostitution, but making it a crime has never caused it to disappear.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-05-01 5:45:26 PM
See? Suzanne gets it, Matthew.
Legalize prostitution = more prostitution = more opportunities for immoral fornication = teh gheys win!!1!
Ok, maybe not that last part. But certainly more fornication, and faith and family tell me that's a bad thing.
If we want to support those values, we need to keep prostitution illegal.
Plus, I don't understand what this means:
"prohibiting consensual acts is positively criminal."
Well, this can't be interpreted literally, right? If the law prohibits the act, then the act is criminal - not the law.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-05-01 6:16:04 PM
Legalizing means taxing. Let's just leave people alone. Therefore, decriminalize.
Posted by: Realist | 2009-05-01 9:33:51 PM
Nobody cares about hookers. But llibertarians are so politically stupid, they want to open this can of worms along with the drugs issue.
Why are llibertarians so preoccupied with moral issues? I think it underlies some sort of collective personality disorder.
I suggest they all get laid. Buy a hooker if you have to. And then move on with something of real value.
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-05-02 11:36:21 AM
the Salvation Army cares about hookers-
and have for over 100 years, without pay
and without govt prop ups of any kind
they care in meaningful ways
- gives food, shelter, medical care,
detox, childcare-carrer councilling
friendship- acceptance
without cost
without any come-ons
or demands of any kind
love God and thy neibour as thyself
these people love themselves pretty much OK
and it shows
cause they got lots of extra love
to go around
armed with Bibles and tambourines
a planetary volunteer Army in uniform
composed mostly of:
anonymous sober white hetrosexual
Christian men & women
who don;t need to" get laid "
or further exploit their clients
in order to
" move onto something of real value.."
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-02 12:38:07 PM
Nobody cares about hookers. But llibertarians are so politically stupid, they want to open this can of worms along with the drugs issue.
Posted by: epsilon | 2009-05-02 11:36:21 AM
Ya know what Epsi, normally any time you go after Libertarians I would take offense, being a libertarian and all..
But I have to agree with you. Making ourselves just another drug party and putting prostitution up front as our "banner" seems the most ridiculous way to try and reach the mainstream Canadian voter. It also very much clouds the real issues (I believe) we are about. Property rights / justice the right to be left alone, social and economic freedom and things that people might actually be able to relate to.
Perhaps WS is just throwing it out there to create controversy and generate "hits", but they are (in my opinion) doing the Libertarian movement a great disservice.
Posted by: JC | 2009-05-03 9:38:25 AM
HOPEFULLY MR EBY'S CHILD DECIDES NOT TO BE A STREET WORKER, HE REPRESENT'S THE POOR GIRLS IN THE DTES OF VANCOUVER, THEY ARE HARSHLY TREATED BY THE JOHN'S AND THE DRUG DEALERS. IT'S UGLY DOWN HERE THE OLMPICS ARE COMING AND YOU CAN BE SURE THEY'LL BE BUSY, THEY DO GET EXCELLENT HEALTH BENEFITS, WHAT THEY DON'T GET IS WHAT THEY NEED A DETERENT FROM THIS LIFESTYLE, I KNOW MY HEART WOULD BE BROKEN IF MY CHILD LIVED AND WORKED DOWN HERE, GET READY FOR THE GAMES
Posted by: SEAN | 2009-05-03 2:05:04 PM
JC, we're reporting on news. The BCCLA issued a press release in conjunction with international May Day observances and rallies. It was news.
Rob Breakenridge at QR77 also covered this prostitution story, and even linked to the Western Standard. Again, it was news.
Furthermore, the Western Standard does cover a very broad range of topics everyday. Prostitution and drug policy are just two of those topics.
We are not a political party; we are an independent news outlet. We don't hide from stories that might not resonate at the ballot box.
You think the WS is doing the libertarian movement a disservice? I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps you can point me to a media organization in Canada doing a better job for liberty so that we can emulate them.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-03 2:16:07 PM
..hey, why isn't on here anybody explaining why prostitution is just great stuff? They sure did it with drugs.. especially marijuana-- and we got some real lulus in here, who became perfect live examples of wipeheadism gone wrong
..
now... we move down the chakra subway from the drug iluminated higher brain to the lower rumblings of the crotch
let's hear why prostitution is 10,000 years old, its just a sex act- not exactly natural but close enough--how prostitution is a choice and that the nanny state has no right to get involved,, unless they have $50 and a rubber--how our economy will be healed overnight once prostitutes start paying tax - the economic spinoffs - porn, drugs and alcohol sales increase, motel room renaissance --
modern research reveals that we are there are natural HIV receptors in the brain just looking for a hookup- or that sex trade violence is just a feature of prohibition..remove the prohibitions and we will finally get that summer of love, all year round--
ha! or why hauling home a tart is more natural than conventional medicine to overcome depression..? or why some of the best and brightest people, the socially creative routinely peddle their arses on the street ? - why, because prostitution is physically liberating? - well, so is wetting your pants
venereal disease is a myth-
crabs, chiggers. fleas and worms are a myth-
pregnancy is a myth-
marriage break up is a myth-
self loathing is a myth-
myths are myths
Posted by: 419 | 2009-05-03 2:50:44 PM
Matthew, it's very irritating when you seed the blogosphere with multiple posts about the exact same topic. I've seen destroyers lay depth charges with less abandon. Shall I just start copying and pasting my responses into each thread?
The fact that people are willing to put themselves at risk by operating outside the law does not constitute the repeal of that law. To make it so would remove all law and with it, the basis for making it. But that does seem to be the direction you would like to take us in.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-03 3:29:58 PM
The so-called libertarians had better get their heads out of their asses - if this is the kind of thing they think will get them elected, they are wrong.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-03 3:34:27 PM
The libers become increasingly loud and erratic since Harper dumped them, Zeb. They may be having a very quiet mental breakdown.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-03 3:41:40 PM
Shane, the first story was about a BCCLA press release. The second story was about my surprise discovery of the Green Party policy on prostitution. Feel free to comment on both threads.
I write about issues as they come from desk and appear in my inbox.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-03 4:15:57 PM
"The fact that people are willing to put themselves at risk by operating outside the law does not constitute the repeal of that law."
I agree, Shane. The risks associated with prostitution do not by themselves constitute grounds for repeal of that law. The primary argument is about natural justice and what constitutes a crime, among the secondary arguments is a concern for the risks associated with the trade. These risks speak to the urgency of the need to reform this unjust law.
We all want the risks associated with real crimes -- murder and rape -- to be very high, and the risks associated with non-crimes -- free speech and expression, for instance -- to be very low.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-03 4:34:04 PM
The libers become increasingly loud and erratic since Harper dumped them, Zeb. They may be having a very quiet mental breakdown.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-03 3:41:40 PM
Being dumped by Harper isn't about the Libertarians...its about Harper. He's showing his true colors, abondoning aything that looks like real conservatism. If anything the Libertarians might be celebrating the public divorce from the phony conservative. It is simply the acknowlegement of something we all knew anyway.
That, and obviously we're getting on his nerves...good! He needs his face rubbed in his own charade.
Posted by: JC | 2009-05-04 6:45:38 AM
You think the WS is doing the libertarian movement a disservice? I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps you can point me to a media organization in Canada doing a better job for liberty so that we can emulate them.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-03 2:16:07 PM
Maybe WS could start pointing out events in its own way rather than "following" the news. Because if we're just going to keep waving the drug banner we're going no where. I can find other things to do than promote a party who's public face is "Lets get stoned". I'm about property rights and justice. The rest will fall into place eventually but there are some up front changes that need to happen before private citizens can legally hit the bong. And I could care less if they do or don't use pot.
Your coverage of the HRC's and their Stalinist policies has been outstanding. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: JC | 2009-05-04 6:51:32 AM
They're both about the same topic, Matthew. The fact that the sources are different does not negate this. And this is far from the first example of topic spamming I've seen on this blog. One per topic is enough, at least until the current thread peters out. If you get new info from another source, use that in your arguments and add it to the existing thread. Much neater.
My fiftieth of a buck.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-04 7:15:44 AM
I agree, Shane...The primary argument is about natural justice and what constitutes a crime, among the secondary arguments is a concern for the risks associated with the trade. These risks speak to the urgency of the need to reform this unjust law.
Prostitution is not a legitimate trade. Canadian society does not recognize it as legitimate. It's seen as a sign of social and moral decay. That is why it is illegal. And good luck making an argument for the right to sell your body on the grounds of natural justice. It's easy for you to say, "This is law is unjust," but I can just as easily say, "No, it isn't." Give me something to sink my teeth into, Matthew.
We all want the risks associated with real crimes -- murder and rape -- to be very high, and the risks associated with non-crimes -- free speech and expression, for instance -- to be very low.
Again with the "real" crimes thing. The only real crimes are those forbidden by statute. And that currently includes prostitution, although to be frank the punishments are pretty damned lax. You can get in more trouble for being a john, a perversion of the idea that the drug seller is more of a criminal than the drug buyer. Of course, most drug sellers are men, and most sex sellers are women, and as any woman can tell you, everything she does wrong is men's fault.
P.S. Are you seriously comparing sex for hire with free speech? If a person can freely express himself with his genitals, then why not with a sword?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-04 7:26:02 AM
"If a person can freely express himself with his genitals, then why not with a sword?" -- Shane Matthew
Because expressing oneself with a sword is an act of aggression, a non-consensual act, which trespasses on the rights of others.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-04 9:13:31 AM
"They're both about the same topic, Matthew."
Same subject matter, different stories. You think the two separate posts were intended to frustrate critics?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-04 9:17:55 AM
It's easy for you to say, "This is law is unjust," but I can just as easily say, "No, it isn't." Give me something to sink my teeth into, Matthew.
I've explained the standard classical liberal position on what counts as a crime many, many times. It's a definition developed by John Mills, who Levant likes to quote in his defense of free speech and expression. It was also developed by Lysander Spooner is his essay "Vices are not Crimes" and many, many other thinkers.
You simply don't agree with the classical liberal limited view of what should constitute a crime, Shane. You have a broader interpretation of what constitutes harm. Your skeptical that certain activities will disrupt the public order. You have a conservative view on this matter; I have a classical liberal view.
I don't like prostitution, but it is a consensual act.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-04 9:34:04 AM
"I'm about property rights and justice." -- JC
Then you should care about the criminalization of consensual acts and the property rights violations that go along with this, like asset forfeiture.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-04 9:37:06 AM
Decriminalizing prostitution does not lead to more of it. New Zealand has exhaustively monitored the sex business over the five years since they decriminalized it, and found no increase.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/act+helps+health+and+safety+sex+workers+report+says
As in New Zealand and Australia prior to decriminalization, and as pointed out by others already, Canadian authorities already do not limit the extent of the prostitution business now, simply because they turn a blind eye to it. They often license, and knowingly tolerate almost all supposedly outlawed prostitution operations under euphemistic labels (escort agencies, massage parlours). The only thing being protected by the laws in Canada is an arrangement that enables police corruption. Canadians are astoundingly unsuspicious of the police organizations who argue to preserve this dishonest system, while police in Western Australia know this situation makes them look bad are are backing decriminalization in their state.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22234665-2761,00.html
And BTW, although no one claims it to have been a complete panacea, the New Zealand government report also found all of the fear mongering from the prohibitionists to have been unfounded. As in North America, the fear mongering prohibitionists have a habit of repeating alleged "facts" and assertions to each other that have no basis in reality, for example the urban legend about women in Germany supposedly losing unemloyment benefits for refusing to work in bothels, a ridiculous and false story.
http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp
Posted by: Sbhmn | 2009-05-04 10:23:04 AM
Then you should care about the criminalization of consensual acts and the property rights violations that go along with this, like asset forfeiture.
I have yet to hear of a single case of a prostitute's assets being seized, but of course they're mostly women. Pimps do get their assets seized, but of course they're mostly men.
In any case, these people obtained these assets by illegal means, in the case of drug dealers by spreading human misery, and in the case of pimps and prostitutes by spreading human trafficking along with a side of VD.
Is there no horse so losing that you will not back it?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-04 10:23:52 AM
That, and obviously we're getting on his nerves...good! He needs his face rubbed in his own charade. - To judge by the tone of this board since the speech was made, I'd say it's more a case of Harper getting on your nerves.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-04 10:24:58 AM
Because expressing oneself with a sword is an act of aggression, a non-consensual act, which trespasses on the rights of others.
Polluting the common morality against the wishes of the moral majority is also a non-consensual act, as is denigrating a neighbourhood by littering its schoolyards and playgrounds with used needles and used condoms.
Killing people isn't always morally wrong. Selling sex and abusing drugs always is. But your cultural Marxism and attendant lack of moral principles blinds you to this.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-04 10:31:55 AM
Same subject matter, different stories. You think the two separate posts were intended to frustrate critics?
More to serve as vents for your own frustration, I think. The world isn't sold on your way of thinking. That's a pity, for you. But if you insist on going against the grain, expect some splinters. Nobody is going to rotate the whole deck as long as it's easier to rotate you.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-04 10:38:07 AM
Shane, I'm under no delusions as to what the world thinks about liberty. The Western Standard has a unique editorial mission that is not subject to any consensus views.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-04 10:47:49 AM
Here's the thing.
When private acts are committed by the thousands and millions, they aren't "private acts" any more.
Let me explain.
Take masturbation.
Absolutely private.
Except that that private act fuels, to a certain degree a pornography industry. People want material to feed their desires (and pornography feeds that behaviour and it creates a vicious circle).
And that behaviour can have an effect on others, such as spouses. Which can have an effect on the family.
Or take homosexual behaviour.
Two men engaging in sex is private.
When millions of men do it, they will need means to find partners. They will build a network. They want their behaviour to be accepted so that they do not have to sneak around, etc.
There is no such thing as a purely private act, when millions of people do it. If millions do it, it will probably have repercussion on the rest of society.
I'm not arguing that we should criminalize homosexual behaviour or masturbation. Far from it.
I am simply saying that the "consenting adults" line isn't sufficient to say that it's a freedom and harms no one else.
I prefer fewer laws to more laws. But banning the exchange of money for sex is probably a good idea, given the negative effect the whole business has on society.
Decriminalizing prostitution does not lead to more of it.
They're thinking of re-criminalizing it in Amsterdam. They're not happy with the results. Freer laws mean more sex trafficking. It's just not good for the social fabric to allow men to pay for cheap sex with conscripted foreigners.
Posted by: SUZANNE | 2009-05-04 10:48:03 AM
Suzanne has a point, Matthew.
Prostitution has negative externalities. Like I said, more prostitution = more fornication = teh gheys win!
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-05-04 10:55:11 AM
I've explained the standard classical liberal position on what counts as a crime many, many times. It's a definition developed by John Mills, who Levant likes to quote in his defense of free speech and expression. It was also developed by Lysander Spooner is his essay "Vices are not Crimes" and many, many other thinkers.
And yet the moral majority, myself among them, remain unconvinced. You seem inclined to forget just how minuscule a minority these “many, many other thinkers” constitute. You also betray an elitist bent by describing your hand-picked philosophers as “thinkers,” in contrast to the unwashed masses, who presumably don’t.
You simply don't agree with the classical liberal limited view of what should constitute a crime, Shane. You have a broader interpretation of what constitutes harm. Your skeptical that certain activities will disrupt the public order. You have a conservative view on this matter; I have a classical liberal view.
I am able to see a broader range of harm that does not always immediately follow the act in question. If your principles and beliefs tell you that a given situation should do no harm, then you will either not see the harm, even if in plain sight, or else dismiss it as the cost of liberty. Such is the myopia of the idealist.
I don't like prostitution, but it is a consensual act.
So is selling nuclear weapons to terrorists. Not an argument a sensible person would be willing to take very far.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-04 10:55:44 AM
Shane, I'm under no delusions as to what the world thinks about liberty. The Western Standard has a unique editorial mission that is not subject to any consensus views.
Or reality.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-04 10:57:11 AM
"And yet the moral majority, myself among them, remain unconvinced." -- Shane Matthews
That's fine. I don't expect people to walk away from their core beliefs everytime I put pen to paper.
I would consider it a victory if both sides understood the argument of the others. From this point of understanding, we can debate the merits and weaknesses of the competing arguments.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-04 11:06:24 AM
"So is selling nuclear weapons to terrorists. Not an argument a sensible person would be willing to take very far." -- Shane Matthews
Internalizing cost is important to this debate, Shane. Excellent point. Critics of prohibition argue that the crime and disease associated with black market prostitution externalizes the cost of prostitution unto the public at large. You might argue the opposite. Since this is an empirical question, we'll have to debate the research.
Sbhmn gave us some stuff to chew on in a comment above. Any thoughts?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-04 11:17:11 AM
"I have yet to hear of a single case of a prostitute's assets being seized, but of course they're mostly women." Shane Matthews
In Alberta, johns get their vehicles seized.
Ezra wrote a column on this, Shane. Google it and let me know what you think.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-04 11:25:29 AM
"I prefer fewer laws to more laws. But banning the exchange of money for sex is probably a good idea, given the negative effect the whole business has on society." Suzanne
Suzanne, if it could be shown that there are more negative effects associated with the prohibition of prostitution than with prostitution itself, would you support legalizing prostitution?
I'm trying to understand if you approach this from a purely utilitarian perspective, or if you think some bigger moral issues are in play.
Thanks for your comment.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-04 11:36:14 AM
SUZANNE,
That is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever read in the WS comments. Seriously.
When socons come on here with ad hominems and faulty generalizations, I get it. They're just incapable of thinking logically--like most people.
You tried to provide some sort of intelligent analysis of how the private becomes public in one of the most glorious displays of idiocy I've ever seen.
The problem with people like you, is you argue as if your moral preconditions are self-evident. As in, the fact that homosexuals will require "networks" of other homosexuals in order to find partners, is self-evidently harmful to society.
It's not self-evidently harmful.
What is self-evident, however, is that you and all people who think like you, are completely off-the-wall loony.
Masturbation fuels the pornography industry? Are you kidding me?
Lesson in logic: Because P follows Q, Q does not imply P. (Because follows , does not imply ).
This is a logical fallacy called affirming the antecedent. Social conservatives don't seem to understand this, and constantly make moral proclamations based on this broken logic.
Plenty of people masturbate, with great frequency, with absolutely no visual stimulation.
We seriously need a new Enlightenment.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-04 11:50:02 AM
Actually, I haven't had my coffee this morning, and after posting I realized I mis-wrote. Affirming the antecedent is logical, it's Affirming the consequent which is the fallacy--which is what I meant to say.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-04 12:01:50 PM
Mike:
I agree that we need a new Enlightenment.
Understanding the wisdom of self-control would be a good starting point.
Following up with the concept of treating other humans in a dignified manner would be another.
Either one would tell you that, to use your own words, that it would be f**king stupid to support continued human trafficking and the slave trade which defines much of the way prostitution is practised.
Posted by: set you free | 2009-05-04 12:06:58 PM
Matthew's problem, Suzanne, is that he's blind to what Terrence terms "externalities." He thinks only of the direct consequences of the act; it is the far-ranging ramifications, the ripple effect if you will, that he seems unable (or unwilling) to comprehend or consider.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-04 12:09:49 PM
In Alberta, johns get their vehicles seized.
Do the prostitutes get theirs seized? I didn't think so. Because as any feminist will tell you, women are every bit the equal of men, with the one caveat that every time they do something bad, it's all men's fault.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-04 12:11:34 PM
I would consider it a victory if both sides understood the argument of the others. From this point of understanding, we can debate the merits and weaknesses of the competing arguments.
How is comprehending, but not accepting, your opponent's argument a victory for either side? You do know that a victory is where someone wins?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-04 12:12:48 PM
Internalizing cost is important to this debate, Shane. Excellent point. Critics of prohibition argue that the crime and disease associated with black market prostitution externalizes the cost of prostitution unto the public at large.
Given that we have publicly funded health care in Canada, who do you think would bear the cost of disease associated with legalized prostitution? Especially if removing the legal constraints resulted in more of it?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-04 12:14:42 PM
Either one would tell you that, to use your own words, that it would be f**king stupid to support continued human trafficking and the slave trade which defines much of the way prostitution is practised.
Another logical fallacy! That makes two! In fact, your position can represent many logical fallacies.
Let's use another example: Many people who listen to rock music do drugs. Therefore, in order to stop people from doing drugs, rock music should be banned.
This example might be silly, if it wasn't actually used by conservatives 30-40 years ago.
The biggest fallacy at play in your logic is the correlation does not imply causation.
This is an important one to understand, and its a common trap for people to fall into.
The idea that two things are correlated with each other, means they cause each other, or that one causes the other, is completely bullshit logic.
The fact there is human trafficking in the sex trade, does not imply that the sex trade itself is it's cause. If you are saying this, you have to prove it.
There are plenty of reasons to doubt this assertion to begin with.
There is a black market for almost all prohibited items.
Cigarettes are smuggled, to avoid their high taxes in Ontario.
Drugs are smuggled, because they can not be obtained legally otherwise.
Guns are smuggled, because they can not be obtained legally otherwise.
When alcohol was prohibited, the mafia smuggled it in and out of Canada and the US.
The same arguments that people use for prohibition against drugs and prostitution could have been applied to alcohol:
Al Capone and the Mob is funded by alcohol, which leads to violence and crime, therefore we should crack down harder on alcohol--which is a perfectly logical corollary to the arguments made against drugs and prostitution.
Of course drugs and prostitution lead to crime. Because they are crimes! And the people who provide those things, make a living off of breaking the law. It therefore follows, that those predisposed to breaking the law, will be the ones who provide these products and services.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-05-04 12:26:25 PM
That is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever read in the WS comments. Seriously.
I’ve always suspected you don’t read your own posts, Mike.
When socons come on here with ad hominems and faulty generalizations, I get it. They're just incapable of thinking logically--like most people.
Screeches Mike Brock as he sticks his fingers down his throat and upchucks day-old sauerkraut and limburger onto your lambskin Guccis.
You tried to provide some sort of intelligent analysis of how the private becomes public in one of the most glorious displays of idiocy I've ever seen.
Again with the farsightedness.
The problem with people like you, is you argue as if your moral preconditions are self-evident. As in, the fact that homosexuals will require "networks" of other homosexuals in order to find partners, is self-evidently harmful to society.
They are self-evident. Everyone in society grows up with them. Well, almost everyone. As this blog proves, there are some exceptions.
It's not self-evidently harmful. What is self-evident, however, is that you and all people who think like you, are completely off-the-wall loony.
But: “When socons come on here with ad hominems and faulty generalizations, I get it.” As I said, you don’t read your own work.
Masturbation fuels the pornography industry? Are you kidding me?
Porn is considered by many to be an essential accessory to experience maximum fulfilment. Certainly the industry owes a significant portion of its revenues to masturbation.
Lesson in logic: Because P follows Q, Q does not imply P. (Because follows , does not imply ). This is a logical fallacy called affirming the antecedent. Social conservatives don't seem to understand this, and constantly make moral proclamations based on this broken logic.
Neither masturbation nor buying porn are logical, and yet people do both. Lesson in life: People do not always behave logically; you said so yourself.
Plenty of people masturbate, with great frequency, with absolutely no visual stimulation.
Meaning you?
We seriously need a new Enlightenment.
As exemplified by what? Having a group whack-off? Or should it be called a “whack-in”?
Actually, I haven't had my coffee this morning…
Or your meds, apparently. Now go play outside.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-04 12:27:47 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.