A giant Teutonic brothel - Has liberalization gone too far?

[Berkut]

Shelf has made what I think are a few good points.

1. Paying a woman who is drawn to prostitution because of psychological or emotional problems for sex can be seen as "exploitation."

2.  Coercion does exist in prostitution.  Paying a pimp to have sex with a woman who is beaten daily and chained to a bed is wrong.

3.  Legalizing prostition could have the effect of increasing coerced prostitution.

I think 1 and 2 are both good (but obvious) points.

I think #3 is very unlikely.

[crazy canuck]

He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

That is an odd use of the word "mores" as it is usually used in the context of community standards rather than individual standards.

So let me as you this to help clarify you position.  Do you think the state should make laws regarding any mores?

I think the default position should be that the state needs to prove a compelling need to pass any law that restricts individuals rights to liberty.

Ok I understand your position now.  Incidentally, you have summarized rather well the test that is required for the state to infringe individual constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter.

[Ideologue]

What are the coercive elements beyond pimps Shelf?

Maybe that if you do not sleep with that creepy john, and put up with his shit, you might not be able to make rent or eat?  Just a guess there.

That would seem a strange coercion in Germany with its robust welfare state though.

Do you accept that capitalism is coercion and employment within its context is by definition exploitation?  EXCELLENT.

[Barrister]

He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

That is an odd use of the word "mores" as it is usually used in the context of community standards rather than individual standards.

So let me as you this to help clarify you position.  Do you think the state should make laws regarding any mores?

I think the default position should be that the state needs to prove a compelling need to pass any law that restricts individuals rights to liberty.

Ok I understand your position now.  Incidentally, you have summarized rather well the test that is required for the state to infringe individual constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter.

You two are talking about different things.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc74/2003scc74.html

The Charter doesn't protect "liberty" (which is what Berkut was talking about).  Rather, it guarantees specific enumerated rights (which is what CC mentioned).  That includes the right to free speech, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to vote, and so on and so forth.  If the government wants to infringe those specific enumerated rights the government must show a fairly compelling need (I don't wish to go into the whole Oakes test right now).

But there are all manner of "rights" that are not listed in the Charter.  The right to put whatever substance you want in your body, or the right to sell your body for sex.  There, the government does not need to show a "compelling need".  As long as the government can show that there is a need that is more than "insignificant or trivial", then government is fully allowed to enact laws within its constitutional jurisdiction.

[Berkut]

No real difference from the US - but I am not talking about what the government has the power to do, but rather what the government ought to do, insofar as we as voters have the choice to promote or oppose particular legislation.

I would not claim that a law banning prostitution was un-Constitutional, as it clearly is not. I do think it is against the basic principles that ought to inform our tolerance for government interference in our lives. But I recognize that I am one of those strange people who think that the concept of personal liberty means more than passing lip service while we go about promoting government that enforces our own particular brand of conformity and "morality" on others.

This is old ground - we've long since established that for the vast majority, the concept of personal liberty carries almost no actual practical weight.

[Barrister]

No real difference from the US - but I am not talking about what the government has the power to do, but rather what the government ought to do, insofar as we as voters have the choice to promote or oppose particular legislation.

I would not claim that a law banning prostitution was un-Constitutional, as it clearly is not. I do think it is against the basic principles that ought to inform our tolerance for government interference in our lives. But I recognize that I am one of those strange people who think that the concept of personal liberty means more than passing lip service while we go about promoting government that enforces our own particular brand of conformity and "morality" on others.

This is old ground - we've long since established that for the vast majority, the concept of personal liberty carries almost no actual practical weight.

Which is my long-established response to your climbing up on that particular cross.

[Berkut]

No real difference from the US - but I am not talking about what the government has the power to do, but rather what the government ought to do, insofar as we as voters have the choice to promote or oppose particular legislation.

I would not claim that a law banning prostitution was un-Constitutional, as it clearly is not. I do think it is against the basic principles that ought to inform our tolerance for government interference in our lives. But I recognize that I am one of those strange people who think that the concept of personal liberty means more than passing lip service while we go about promoting government that enforces our own particular brand of conformity and "morality" on others.

This is old ground - we've long since established that for the vast majority, the concept of personal liberty carries almost no actual practical weight.

What I like about Self is that he is at least honest to simply state that he doesn't care all that much about liberty when he makes it clear he doesn't care that much about liberty.

You still in favor of the state forcing people to be married to people they don't want to be married to, counselor?

[Berkut]

Which is my long-established response to your climbing up on that particular cross.

How is that climbing on a cross? That doesn't even make sense.

[Barrister]

Which is my long-established response to your climbing up on that particular cross.

How is that climbing on a cross? That doesn't even make sense.

Climbing up on a cross = making a martyr of yourself.  The poor, tragic figure who is the only one who truly cares about liberty...

[Admiral Yi]

I think you're overstating your case Beeb.

There are plenty of people in the world who don't view individual freedom as the default position.

[Berkut]

Which is my long-established response to your climbing up on that particular cross.

How is that climbing on a cross? That doesn't even make sense.

Climbing up on a cross = making a martyr of yourself.  The poor, tragic figure who is the only one who truly cares about liberty...

Still doesn't make any sense. I do not suffer anything because I have a particular viewpoint not shared by people like you, so how would I be a martyr? It's not like I am out protesting or something over your not caring about liberty.


And I certainly did not say I was the only one who cares about liberty - I said plenty of people who SAY they care about liberty do not. *Everyone* claims to care about liberty - but most people actually don't when it comes to making actual choices about the law. You are a case study. Most self styled "conservatives" are, in fact.


But my point is that almost everyone says they care, but few actually do. The contrast is between the number who claim to care and the number who actually do, as evidenced by their stance on actual issues. Not that I am some kind of special unique flower.

[CountDeMoney]

Paying a pimp to have sex with a woman who is beaten daily and chained to a bed is wrong.

What, is that an extra charge?

[Razgovory]

I think you're overstating your case Beeb.

There are plenty of people in the world who don't view individual freedom as the default position.

True, but Berkut has frequently taken the position that most people don't actually understand freedom and liberty and he was one of the enlightened few that does.  It has yet to dawn on him that one person's understanding of liberty and freedom may differ from another.

[jimmy olsen]

Like I said, I'm with you on moral grounds.  But I just can't see your legal case.

Agreed - I just can't understand the argument being made that given option A (bad) and option B (also bad, and for some definitionally worse than A) somehow removing option A improves the lot of the "victim".

All of Shelf's objections pretty much amount to "The job sucks, and the only people who do it do so because their life sucks". That is

A) Probably not true when you remove the criminal aspect out of the job, and
B) Kind of tautological. Of course if you define a job as being undesirable, the onlyl people who end up doing it tend to be people whose circumstances are such that they can generally only manage undesirable jobs.

Legalizing doesn't seem to remove the criminal aspect from the job though. Trafficking has increased in Germany since legalization and none of the proposed social benefits have come to fruition. It would seem that the policy has completely failed to achieve its aims. Why do you think it will succeed in the future?

I don't think either of those conclusions are at all supported by the facts on the ground.

If trafficking has increased, then allocate resources to stop trafficking, which is illegal.

What are these proposed social benefits that have not come to fruition? They seem rather vague and poorly defined.

I think people who don't like prostitution have defined the "aims" such that they can conclude that they have not been reached.

It's not poorly defined at all. Out of 400,000 only 44 have signed up for social services. That was one of the main goals of the law.

[DGuller]

That's better than Obamacare.