“If I had my way, I’d destroy all the mosques and spread the whores around..."

[Firethorn]

But isn't that precisely what the broken window is all about?  You think there is more business, because you're seeing economic activity you haven't seen before.  But is it an increase in prosperity, or just a re-arrangement of deck chairs?

Well, the deal with the broken window is that something is LOST and the replacement of it is generating activity.  This would be more along the line of professional cleaners, hair dressers, barbers, etc..  Something that people can mostly do themselves, but choose to hire a professional for whatever reason.

It would just be money that is re-routed from wherever the men were spending it previously.

If it's superior to what they were getting previously, might they be willing to work more overtime to get it more often?  That would be an increase in production, besides the prostitution.

One could argue the same thing for ALL entertainment, pretty much.  Clubs that are only strip would probably suffer, gambling casinos might see a bit less money, etc...

And, yes, I of course take it as a given as a matter of our experience as a society that marital infidelity increases divorce rates. 

As Nick and Micro note, do you have any evidence that legal prostitution would increase marital infidelity with any degree of statistical revelance?  By all indicators, it's pretty high already - those that are going to cheat are already doing so, much like the drug addicts.

[roo_ster]

The Netherlands, New Zealand and Germany have vastly lower divorce rates than the United States, yet prostitution is legal and widespread in these countries.

Those countries also have lower rates of marriage than the USA and have a smaller sub-proportion of the population that is able to divorce.  Why buy the cow when you only need to rent the milk?

[In addition to legal prostitution, the countries contrasted to the USA have other arrangements (gay marriage, civil unions, & others) that erode the proportion of the population that actually marries.  The attrited remainder that actually does marry is doing so in the face of the cultural headwind and shows the ability to remain true to traditional institutions.  I would not be surprised if this hard core is less prone to divorce than the average married couple in the USA.]

Yes, but would legalized prostitution necessarily bring increased marital infidelity?

&

How does legalizing brothels increase marital infidelity?

I find it amusing that folks who argue in the particular case with regard to economics that smaller, less-intrusive government will increase economic activity and more gov't (taxes, regs, prohibitions) will decrease economic activity, but deny the general case that reducing gov't regulation/intrusion/prohibition increases the occurrence of that which was formerly intruded upon.

You seem to take this as a given.  I think I'd have to disagree.  Men AND women both manage to cheat quite effectively, fall out and get divorces, or even just live seperately, all the time without legal prostitution.

Yes, they occur where prostitution is legal.  But, reducing the difficulty or increasing the opportunity will increase those particular activities.

If you don't think that an increase in marital infidelity would lead to an increase in divorce and that divorce leads to significant and documented wealth-destruction, I would suggest that almost all the data indicates otherwise.


FWIW, I think the federal system addresses this best, in that some states can legalize it while others prohibit it, rather than imposing a single rule for the entire nation.

I just don't think that the real and significant results of legalization ought to be glossed over.

[DustinD]

Why buy the cow when you only need to rent the milk?

Getting married so that you can have sex has got to be the worst reason for marriage imaginable.

[MicroBalrog]

I find it amusing that folks who argue in the particular case with regard to economics that smaller, less-intrusive government will increase economic activity and more gov't (taxes, regs, prohibitions) will decrease economic activity, but deny the general case that reducing gov't regulation/intrusion/prohibition increases the occurrence of that which was formerly intruded upon.

Why do you assume that it is married men that are the key market for prostitution?


Of course, the main question is interesting:

Nobody on this forum believes, I think, that it would be moral for society send the cops to beat down your door for suspected premarital activities, performing a sex act with a person in a particular pose, or performing a gay sexual act. In general we all agree that the sex acts between two consenting, sane adults are their own business. Yet as soon as money changed hands the activity becomes 'dirty' and society is morally entitled to forbid it?

[Strings]

>Why buy the cow when you only need to rent the milk?<

Scientists have discovered a food that will put an extra 15lbs on a woman, and eradicate her sex drive: it's called "wedding cake".

 I read this one off to Spoon. Her response? "If your only reason to get married is so you can have sex, you're a waste of the woman's time".

Legalized prostitution is not going to result in previously faithful people suddenly running out and "getting a piece on the side". There are already a number of ways people can cheat. About the only results you'd see (w/regards to marriage) are:

a) some guys might get caught a little easier
b) there's less likelyhood of an STD being "brought home"

[Werewolf]

...In general we all agree that the sex acts between two consenting, sane adults are their own business. Yet as soon as money changed hands the activity becomes 'dirty' and society is morally entitled to forbid it?

I've never really understood that. Money changes hands - bad. Depending on the circumstances if one gives it away for free - that can be good or bad.

Prostitution - legal prostitution - seems to me a perfectly good way for your every day average guy - or gal for that matter - who gets a bit horney to take care of that feeling in the most natural way possible. Having to hold it in because a willing partner isn't available must generate some kind of mental issues/behaviours that just wouldn't exist if one could drive down to the corner brothel, hand Mary $10 or what ever the going rate is these days and take care of business.

Never saw the problem with that.

Where the problem exists is society making it illegal. That guarantees that the practitioners of the profession will in most cases come from the lowest most degenerate levels of society. Increases the likelihood of STD's, crimes of violence against consumers and the prostitutes, etc. No good has ever come from making prostitution illegal.

Edited to add:Many here claim to be libertarians who believe in personal freedom, responsibility, minimal government interference in the lives of others etc etc etc. Maintaining that prostitution is evil, immoral and should be illegal would seem to fly in the face of libertarian beliefs.

[roo_ster]

>Why buy the cow when you only need to rent the milk?<

Scientists have discovered a food that will put an extra 15lbs on a woman, and eradicate her sex drive: it's called "wedding cake".

 I read this one off to Spoon. Her response? "If your only reason to get married is so you can have sex, you're a waste of the woman's time".

Legalized prostitution is not going to result in previously faithful people suddenly running out and "getting a piece on the side". There are already a number of ways people can cheat. About the only results you'd see (w/regards to marriage) are:

a) some guys might get caught a little easier
b) there's less likelyhood of an STD being "brought home"

I agree with some of that, but it misses the main point: sex is now (in a prostitution-legal regime) just a financial transaction away.  No need to convince some other person to bump uglies for nothing.  The slice of humanity that would be most effected is those who can't/won't get laid for gratis in a prostitution-illegal regime. 

It is not as if there is some great change in particular people (going from illegal to legal), but the change in circumstances allows folks already so inclined, but unable, to realize their inclinations.

Also, the assumption that STDs in the population or "brought home" would be reduced is a bag of dust and false hope. 

Here's a little data on the subject:

Condom Effectiveness Studies
Many studies have shown that latex condoms are effective at preventing pregnancy and HIV transmission in a large percentage of cases, according to the AP/Yahoo! News. Over a one-year period, with perfect use -- always using a condom and putting it on before skin-to-skin contact -- condoms reduce the risk of becoming pregnant to 3% and reduce the chance of contracting HIV to less than 1%. For most other STDs, experts say evidence suggests condoms reduce the risk of infection, but effectiveness varies by disease and more research is needed. According to a 2004 World Health Organization bulletin and a 2001 NIH report, individual studies have demonstrated that condom use reduces the risk of infection for:

    * Gonorrhea by 39% to 62% in women and 49% to 75% in men;
    * Chlamydia by 26% to 90% in women and 33% in men;
    * Genital herpes by 30% to 92% in women and less in men, though no numbers were given;
    * Trichomoniasis by 30% in women and significantly less in men, though no numbers were given;
    * Syphilis by 40% to 60% in both sexes;
    * Pelvic inflammatory disease by 55%; and
    * Genital ulcers by 18% to 23% in both sexes.

Condoms reduce the likelihood and regular examinations may catch an infection sooner, but the increased frequency of encounters would overwhelm the reduction brought by condom use.

[roo_ster]

Many here claim to be libertarians who believe in personal freedom, responsibility, minimal government interference in the lives of others etc etc etc. Maintaining that prostitution is evil, immoral and should be illegal would seem to fly in the face of libertarian beliefs.

Yet another case in point showing that libertarianism is synonymous with neither classical liberalism nor a firm belief in the US Constitution as a guide for governance of these United States.

Just another utopian philosophy from a century that developed more than a few.

[Perd Hapley]

Legalizing prostitution is really not what I'm arguing about.  It would be no skin off my nose, and I'm not sure whether I'd support legalization or not. 

What I objected to was the idea that more brothels would be good, economically. 

Well, the deal with the broken window is that something is LOST and the replacement of it is generating activity.  This would be more along the line of professional cleaners, hair dressers, barbers, etc..  Something that people can mostly do themselves, but choose to hire a professional for whatever reason.

That's a good point.  Still, all we're getting with the brothels is the possibility of more money flowing into the brothel's locale, from the surrounding area.  That isn't exactly a big boost to our national GDP. 

But let's imagine for a moment that it were illegal to pay for hair-styling.  Would anyone really think that legalizing it, and opening beauty shops would be a boost to the economy?

[seeker_two]

But let's imagine for a moment that it were illegal to pay for hair-styling.  Would anyone really think that legalizing it, and opening beauty shops would be a boost to the economy?

Nope...if you made hair-styling illegal, all the women & metros would buy guns & tar to use when the get their hands on you... 

[doczinn]

Many here claim to be libertarians who believe in personal freedom, responsibility, minimal government interference in the lives of others etc etc etc. Maintaining that prostitution is evil, immoral and should be illegal would seem to fly in the face of libertarian beliefs.

Yet another case in point showing that libertarianism is synonymous with neither classical liberalism nor a firm belief in the US Constitution as a guide for governance of these United States.

Just another utopian philosophy from a century that developed more than a few.

Perhaps before you say that you can point out a libertarian who wants prostitution to be illegal. One such individual would not prove you right, but it might give you some basis for such a charge.

[roo_ster]

Yet another case in point showing that libertarianism is synonymous with neither classical liberalism nor a firm belief in the US Constitution as a guide for governance of these United States.

Just another utopian philosophy from a century that developed more than a few.

Perhaps before you say that you can point out a libertarian who wants prostitution to be illegal. One such individual would not prove you right, but it might give you some basis for such a charge.

You have flipped the meaning around.

WW sees folks who he thinks(1) want to keep prostitution illegal and wonders how they can call themselves libertarian.

Part of my point is that he is probably right in that libertarian doctrine is incompatible with outlawing consensual sex where money changes hands.

Another part is that the outlawing of such, especially when done by sub-units in a federal system, is NOT incompatible with either classical liberalism or the COTUS.

Furthermore, many folks conflate libertarianism with classical liberalism.  This topic is only one of the ways in which they are at odds.  I would argue that is due to the nature of the underlying principles of the two philosophies.

Last, the underlying philosophy of classical liberalism (and the COTUS, as its expression) deals more realistically with human nature(2) than does libertarianism, which, in its more anarchic expression, requires more of men than their nature allows (anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, etc.) and in its more authoritarian expressions (dealing with "positive" liberty issues like gay marriage) would use the power of gov't to push aside the COTUS (& state constitutions) and force its conception of liberty on all...whether they want it or not.





(1) Likely incorrect in the cases of some who argue that the legalization of prostitution would have deleterious economic effects.


(2) "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
----Federalist #51

[doczinn]

libertarianism, which, in its more anarchic expression, requires more of men than their nature allows

How so? Liberty doesn't require anyone to willingly take responsibility for their actions, but only that the government not use its power to shield anyone from the consequences of their actions.

and in its more authoritarian expressions (dealing with "positive" liberty issues like gay marriage) would use the power of gov't to push aside the COTUS (& state constitutions) and force its conception of liberty on all...whether they want it or not.

Nope, sorry. Liberty cannot be imposed. It is by definition the absence of imposition. Libertarians who think themselves in favor of state-sanctioned gay marriage are most likely confused, having missed the point that government should not be deciding at all what marriage is or is not.

[Regolith]

Also, the assumption that STDs in the population or "brought home" would be reduced is a bag of dust and false hope. 

Not really, no.  In Nevada, anyway, state licensed prostitutes are required to regularly be checked for STD's.  If they get an STD, they can't work any more.  Use of condoms is also mandatory.

Prostitutes in places where prostitution is illegal, on the other hand, don't get checked for STD's, and condom use is most likely optional, and much like making guns illegal hasn't really done anything to stem gun crimes in places like Great Britain, making prostitution illegal isn't likely to decrease the incidence of prostitution, and since the illegal prostitutes can't be checked for STD's, disease transfer rates go up.

[Perd Hapley]

How so? Liberty doesn't require anyone to willingly take responsibility for their actions, but only that the government not use its power to shield anyone from the consequences of their actions.

I think he means that libertarianism expects people to be more virtuous than they really are.  Or to put it another way, it puts its faith in good men, when there aren't any. 

[gunsmith]

I feel bad when I read the letters in the paper from older men who don't get enough sex. That should never have to be a problem.

maybe you should, uh , lend them a hand?

[MicroBalrog]

Also, the assumption that STDs in the population or "brought home" would be reduced is a bag of dust and false hope. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada#Legal_brothels

Since 1986, when mandatory testing began, not a single brothel prostitute has ever tested positive for HIV. The mandatory condom law was passed in 1988. A study conducted in 1995 in two brothels found that condom use in the brothels was consistent and sexually transmitted diseases were accordingly absent. The study also found that few of the prostitutes used condoms in their private lives.[11]

[MicroBalrog]

Another part is that the outlawing of such, especially when done by sub-units in a federal system, is NOT incompatible with either classical liberalism or the COTUS.

Even if we assume you're right here, the Constitution per se is not incompatible with libertarianism.  After all, how would it be incompatible with the Constitution for libertarians to become elected to the leadership of state X or Y and remove the prostitution bans?

The Constitution is an excellent mechanism – in a smaller state, it's easier to adjust the status quo when there are enough active people who really want it done than in a giant 300-million-man imperial democracy.

While it is true that the US Constitution is not a libertarian document - simple chronology wouldn't allow for it to be one - it is probably more compatible with libertarianism than it is with leftism, and is surely much more compatible with libertarianism than any other constitutional of any other government.


Of course it's interesting that people forget that the Constitution was initially a far more libertarian document than people intend it to be. Lochner v. New York, anyone?

[seeker_two]

maybe you should, uh , lend them a hand?

WE NEED A BANSCHWERK ON AISLE 3.....BANSCHWERK TO AISLE 3......

[Firethorn]

Not really, no.  In Nevada, anyway, state licensed prostitutes are required to regularly be checked for STD's.  If they get an STD, they can't work any more.  Use of condoms is also mandatory.

What Regolith and MicroBalrog said.

It's the same principals on how legalizing drugs would most likely decrease poisonings/overdoses from usage of recreational drugs - because a legal product wouldn't be cut with poisons(or heads roll in the company), and would be of a consistent quality/potency(or heads roll) so the drug user knows how much to use to get the desired result.

No, it wouldn't eliminate OD's 100%, but it'd help a lot.

A legal hooker, as known in Nevada and most of Europe, is required to be drug free, STD free, and to use a condom.  This is tested/audited.  They even test the Johns.  The prostitute has every incentive to keep clean - otherwise she(or he) looses her job.

[makattak]

What Regolith and MicroBalrog said.

It's the same principals on how legalizing drugs would most likely decrease poisonings/overdoses from usage of recreational drugs - because a legal product wouldn't be cut with poisons(or heads roll in the company), and would be of a consistent quality/potency(or heads roll) so the drug user knows how much to use to get the desired result.

No, it wouldn't eliminate OD's 100%, but it'd help a lot.

A legal hooker, as known in Nevada and most of Europe, is required to be drug free, STD free, and to use a condom.  This is tested/audited.  They even test the Johns.  The prostitute has every incentive to keep clean - otherwise she(or he) looses her job.

So your libertarian view is that legalized prostitution will be safer because the government will require STD testing?

I truly hope you can see the irony.

[roo_ster]

So your libertarian view is that legalized prostitution will be safer because the government will require STD testing?

I truly hope you can see the irony.

 

No, they probably can't.

Even if we assume you're right here, the Constitution per se is not incompatible with libertarianism.

Libertarianism most certainly is incompatible with the COTUS, especially the more federalist bits which place few restraints on the states.

Oh, I guess you could argue for a regime where the feds & states refrain from using those powers in the COTUS granted to them that are incompatible with libertarianism.  That does not change the fundamental difference in underlying philosophies.

After all, how would it be incompatible with the Constitution for libertarians to become elected to the leadership of state X or Y and remove the prostitution bans?

The point is accurate, but not germane.  A true theocrat can become elected, but his unConstitutional proclivities ought to be constrained by the COTUS or state constitution.

OTOH, a libertarian executive is required to comply with laws & such that are promulgated by the legislature that are in accord with their constitution, even if they are not in accord with libertarianism.

I am largely in agreement with the rest of your post.

I think he means that libertarianism expects people to be more virtuous than they really are.  Or to put it another way, it puts its faith in good men, when there aren't any. 

Pretty much. 

Minarchism & anarcho-capitalism look great on paper, but would degenerate into the same old despotism in no time flat.

The founding fathers, standing on the shoulders of those that went before them, had a clearer vision than the midgets who followed in their wake.

[DustinD]

and in its more authoritarian expressions (dealing with "positive" liberty issues like gay marriage)

Until Libertarians manage to get the government out of the marriage business, pushing for equal benefits is fine. By the same token, if gay people could not collect welfare, Libertarians could push for allowing them to sign up for it.

I truly hope you can see the irony.

No, they probably can't.

Firethorn was simply pointing out what would happen if it was legalized elsewhere based on how it is in a few places now.

[Firethorn]

Firethorn was simply pointing out what would happen if it was legalized elsewhere based on how it is in a few places now.

Exactly.

In addition, I consider myself a moderate libertarian, not an anarchist.  SOME regulation is for the best.  In the case of prostitutes, health regulations along the lines that help make sure our food is safe, that hospitals are clean, etc, are acceptable.  Just customized to fit the situation, of course.

Just because I'd legalize the currently illegal drugs doesn't mean that I'd remove all controls on them.  Indeed, I'd probably place more - 18+(I'll take 21), safety/purity rules, and tax it to pay for the required enforcement.  As a sop to others, charge an appropriate fee to pay for treatment centers.

I should note that I associate with the libertarian party because they're the one I most agree with; not because I alter my beliefs to fit the party.  If Libertarians really started gaining steam, I might eventually identify more with the Democrats/Republicans(not sure which), but it'd take a while.

[MicroBalrog]

So your libertarian  view is that legalized prostitution will be safer because the government will require STD testing?

In my libertarian view, legalized prostitution is safer because the people who run it are accountable through legal channels. Either through regulation - let's not kid ourselves, business are going to remain regulated in the near future - or through the threat of people suing. If someone gets a stomach flu after eating at your restaurant, they're going to sue the living hell out of you. If someone gets cooties after visiting your brothel, they're going to sue. You can't sue or regulate an entity that's already illegal.

Fujrther, as a libertarian, I believe that I'd rather have a reality where brothels are legal and licensed to a reality where the activity is banned. Just as I believe that shall-issue licensing for concealed carry is superior to a total ban on firearms, even though I oppose both concealed carry and licenses for it.

OTOH, a libertarian executive is required to comply with laws & such that are promulgated by the legislature that are in accord with their constitution, even if they are not in accord with libertarianism.

A libertarian executive, if elected, could SERIOUSLY mess stuff up for the other branches, even if they weren't staffed with Libertarians. And vice versa.  The function of the US government, by design, is hinged on the WILLING cooperation betwene the three branches of government. THe growth of the modern state is predicated on the fact they've been amicable towards each other for the last 60 years. Yet the Constitution provides for ways in which a President, a Congress, or a Supreme Court that willed it could derail the whole thing.

As I always say: If a libertarian President were elected, it'd be like hitting 88 miles per hours. You'd see some serious *expletive deleted*it.