[Diego Mamani]

[quote=harvey]Although some jobs and roles in life have less dignity than others, it is universally accepted that prostitution is at the bottom of the scale – low enough that no one should have to do it simply because they have no alternative.[/quote]
(Emphasis added)
I agree with UCGal that prostitution is far from being at the bottom of the scale. More importantly, we are not talking here about people who have to prostitute themselves. We are talking about people who want to.

I think that, in your mind, prostitution and human trafficking are so conflated, that you can’t think about one without bringing the other into the discussion. But that way of thinking clouds the issue.

[Diego Mamani]

From our Wikipedia friends. Countries in red have made prostitution illegal (of course, there’s as much prostitution as in other countries, but mafias are in charge wherever there is prohibition of something people really want):

What this graph shows is that other than the US, South Africa, and some Scandinavian countries, this business is outlawed wherever there are authoritarian regimes.

Color codes
Green: Prostitution legal and regulated
Blue: Prostitution legal and unregulated, but organised activities such as brothels and pimping are illegal
Red: Prostitution illegal
Gray: No data

[Diego Mamani]

Step 1 is a necessary condition, but step 2 is neither necessary nor sufficient to earn an extra $250K. We also need:

Step 3: Romney wins in November

🙂

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=harvey]Not just me – our society and every society that has evolved out of the dark ages, see sex as something “sacred.” That’s why rape and child pornography are treated as the most egregious crimes in our society. That’s why sex offenders are treated as a special class of criminals. That’s why there is so much debate about how and when we teach our children about sex.

Anything that involves the most intimate parts of a person’s body and that is hard-wired to our emotional state deserves special treatment. If we don’t consider sex to be “sacred,” then there would be no reason to consider rape as more serious than financial fraud or even burglary.[/quote]
We don’t need to resort to supernatural beliefs (i.e., “sacred”) to distinguish rape from financial crimes. Or are you saying that non-religious people should be OK with being raped because nothing is sacred to them? Rape is a monstrous crime, far more serious than financial fraud or burglary because a person’s intimacy is violated. There’s no need to bring religious or supernatural beliefs or invoke “sacredness” to characterize rape.

In any case, this makes clear that opposition to legal prostitution stems from religious beliefs. That’s fine, but you shouldn’t use the law to impose your beliefs on the rest of society.

Bringing rape, slavery, and human trafficking into this discussion only serves to cloud the real issues. But it also reveals the fact that religious people have been brought up to believe that prostitution (strictly speaking a victimless business transaction between two consenting adults) is so “wrong” and “evil” that they equate it with rape and human trafficking (which are obviously monstrous crimes). But they can’t be equated, one is a transaction, the other a horrible crime.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=flu]Hmm. BAC is looking pretty tasty at $7/share….[/quote]
I don’t know… BAC was trading at $5 last December.

I’m glad that I bought WFC in March ’09 when there was blood on the streets. Should I sell it know?

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=bearishgurl]All I could google was a March 2010 BAC forgiveness program (…)[/quote]
You’re supposed to newsgoogle, not google 🙂
Here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/bank-of-america-begins-contacting-more-than-200000-customers-for-possible-mortgage-reductions/2012/05/08/gIQAV1Y2AU_story.html

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=harvey]I agree that legalization reduces some of the problems, but probably not the human trafficking and slavery. I know at one time it this was a big problem in Amsterdam – maybe it has improved. We all know we cannot eliminate prostitution, but making it legal probably will make it more common and thus may make some of the problems that come with it more common.[/quote]
Here’s where we have to agree to disagree. For me it’s obvious that making the business legal, regulated, and transparent, would reduce slavery. We know what happened with alcohol prohibition in the U.S.: consumption dropped only a little, but we got plenty of violence, organized crime, corruption in the police and judiciary (even in congress), etc. Not to mention the deaths and disease caused by poorly made illegal booze. I think that the problems caused by prohibition were far worse than the problems caused by alcohol itself. It’s the same with cocaine and prostitution: making them illegal only fosters crime while consumption goes on.

(So, you are pri_dk, not FLU, right?)

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=harvey]Personally I’m OK with legalization of prostitution and legalization of many recreational drugs given certain regulations. But I don’t believe we should ignore the tradeoffs on all issues.[/quote]Most libertarians would agree with you. Legalizing something doesn’t mean “free-for-all, do-what-you-want.” For instance, if cars were invented today, some people may want to make them illegal like cocaine or prostitution. Their argument would be “wait, if cars were legal, what’s to stop an 8-year old from driving clumsily and killing pedestrians?”

In most of Europe and Latin America prostitution is legal, yet you don’t see hookers walking down the streets soliciting business from minors. In fact, they work out of brothels located in designated zones (think industrial areas), must have health certificates, etc. There are of course, street hookers, but they are a minority, they risk being arrested, and they are not more prevalent than in the US (where the business is “illegal” but still takes place one way or another).

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=harvey]Libertarian logic is often so hopelessly shallow.

I don’t understand why private citizens cannot own nuclear weapons.

Why is does the government take away my freedom to own a nuclear weapon?

Of course if someone a nuclear weapon to harm others they should go to jail.

Just because I own one doesn’t make me a criminal.[/quote]
What you wrote is very good, as a joke. Owning nuclear weapons would be criminal because of the risk imposed on your neighbors. Even if you don’t kill anybody, the fact that you put them under such extreme risk, would make them victims. Your example certainly does not apply to prostitution or cocaine trade/use, where there are no victims.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=flu]You do realize a good number of prostitutes these days were forced into a slave trade.,, particularly some from Asia.. a lot of them are forced[/quote] So, if bank robbers use cars to get away, should we outlaw cars? Two points to consider here:
(1) The slave trade is the problem and the criminal activity, not prostitution per se.
(2) The fact that prostitution has been made artificially illegal actually contributes to the existence of the slave trade.

Like bank robberies, we could think of countless examples. Drunk drivers can injure and kill innocents. Then, do we outlaw alcohol? No, b/c drinking alcohol is not criminal. Driving drunk is criminal.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=Dr. Paul][quote=sdduuuude]Cooking classes at Great News Cooking school. Fun. Interesting. Good food. It’s a good date night if you are into cooking at all.[/quote]

hmmm. that’s might be a good idea…[/quote]

Only if she likes to cook. Some ladies see cooking as a chore… How about a day at a full-service spa? Unlike the cooking class, it won’t feel like working.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=Arraya]It is a phenomenon, much like slavery, that has proliferated with the spread of capitalist markets, and with gender, sexual, and racial oppression.[/quote]
That’s complete nonsense. Both prostitution and slavery predate capitalism; they even predate feudalism!

Another nonsense is to put slavery and prostitution together. Slavery entails victims; that’s why no one would defend its practice today. Prostitution, OTOH, may be regarded as “wrong” and immoral by some (myself included), but like doing drugs, it has no victims. Therefore, it should not be a crime.

Again, it’s naive to think that we can legislate morality. I agree with you that prostitution has the potential to destruct the person’s self and humanity. But making the practice illegal does not accomplish its intended objective, instead, we end up with underground criminal activity.

[Diego Mamani]

Thank you sdr. The comparables are of course public information, and we were not in a hurry, so we visited at least a dozen houses before making any offers. We had a good idea of what was out there, and at what prices.

[Diego Mamani]

[quote=harvey]Because we are still clinging to the notion that some activities can be stopped by making laws against them.[/quote]
Exactly. It should have become entirely obvious that we simply can’t legislate morality. Doing drugs, gambling, or paying for sex may be “wrong,” but unless there’s an actual victim in this “crimes” then they really aren’t and should be decriminalized.

Making these activities “illegal” only contributes to create more crime (the opposite of what poorgradstudent says below).

[quote=poorgradstudent]My biggest concern about prostitution is it encourages kidnapping and trafficking.[/quote]
That’s only true because prostitution has artificially been made illegal. If it were not illegal, it would be regulated, transparent, etc. In any case, if the problem is kidnapping and trafficking, then we should prosecute and penalize the kidnappers and traffickers.

Similarly, cars are often used in bank robberies. Do we make cars illegal? No, because driving a car is not the problem, the bank robbing is the problem.

[quote=walterwhite]Human trafficking is probably a vanishingly small portion of paid sex encounters. Some housecleaners may have been procured under similar circa but we don’t criminalize housecleaning.[/quote]
Well put. Years back, a catholic friend of mine was against legalizing abortion. As he was running out of arguments, he said “but if it’s legal, then what’s to stop a woman from aborting on her own and jeopardizing her health?” I said, “what????”

One more: people who support the failed “drug on wars” and want to keep cocaine illegal often say “but if it’s legal, what’s to stop a school bus driver from going to work on drugs?” Again, how can people cloud and distort issues like that? What would be a crime here is driving under the influence, and worse so if the driver has passengers. But the use of cocaine per se, in the privacy of one’s house, would have no victims, and hence should not be criminalized.

[Diego Mamani]

How much representation do you really need? I’d like to hear some comments on this. In my case, I had been a renter in my area for many years, so when I decided to buy, I knew exactly what I wanted. I searched for houses using Redfin, Zillow, Ziprealty, etc. Also, a few local realtors have excellent websites where you can search the MLS according to your criteria. This way you not only find houses, but you can see their complete histories, and knowing the parcel numbers you can check for more info with the county recorder and the property tax assessor.

Once I found what I liked, I contacted the listing agent directly and asked for a showing. They invariably asked me if I already had an agent, and said no. In one instance I liked the house and made an offer, which was turned down. Interestingly, the listing agent volunteered to represent me in searching for other properties. I said “no, thank you”. He didn’t like to hear that, he got upset, and lectured me saying that I need an agent, yada, yada, yada, that it doesn’t cost me anything, etc.

What I found funny about this guy is that he was OK with me making an offer on his house and him getting both sides of the commission. But if it was another listing agent getting that sweet deal, he was opposed to it!

I found his approach creepy, and decided to avoid him. In fact, when we have new hires and they ask me for a referral, I give other agents’ names, and also tell them the story of Mr Creepy so that they avoid him.

I know that it doesn’t cost me out-of-pocket to have an agent representing me, but the 6% (or whatever) commission will come from the purchase price that I pay. If I deal only with the listing agent, don’t I have some leverage at the time of negotiation? The listing agent may think “this buyer is offering 5% below the listing price, but I get to keep both sides of the commission… that’s better for me than getting only one side of the commission at full asking price.”

In any case, that’s what we did at the end. We found another house that we liked and dealt directly with the listing agent. My wife made a low-ball offer, that I thought would be turned down outright, but to my surprise, the sellers countered with a price much below their already reduced asking price. So, we countered again meeting them half way (their counter was very, very close to our first offer), and we bought the house.

Did I do something wrong by not having an agent representing me? Did I miss anything?

[Author]

Posts