In my opinion, a person should be able to charge for services that they can give away if they want. Who are they hurting? Two or more consenting adults make an arrangement that is between themselves.
Why is it that women and men for that matter, are still being controlled by governments in the bedroom? Is the bible or religion running our societies?
Who or what decided on things that are moral or immoral?
Just because a person doesn't want to do something themselves, I for one, doesn't give them the right to "Preach" to others what to do..
Yes. Let's get rid of the government control of our bedroom and replace it with the government control of a third-party bedroom! Sounds great! Regulate and tax everything to death, because people don't know what's good for them. If we don't regulate people, they'll end up hurting themselves. Then hookers will end up lurking around our suburban neighborhoods looking to spread their diseases on our doorsteps.
Let's all look to government to solve our problems. Forget personal responsibility, that shit's for the birds. People will never learn if we let them do what they want, we've got to step in and say "No! Bad citizen! No cookie!"
We've got to make sure the government is always there to hold our hands.
You complain about the religious right trying to control people's lives while speaking of regulation? Where do you draw the line?
The idiocy of politics in this country baffles me. The "religious-right" sickens me. Hell, it sickened me even when I was a conservative Christian. These people with their grand-standing bullshit may have made me sick, but I'll be damned if I run to side with the idiocy of the left.
'Just because a person doesn't want to do something themselves, I for one, doesn't give them the right to "Preach" to others what to do.. '
Actually, the First Amendment gives every American the right to "Preach" whatever the hell they want. Some people decide to take it a bit too far and instead of just preaching, they try to impose their beliefs on others through legislation. The good old "I don't do it so why should you be allowed to" attitude. This is not good for anyone.
Why do we call that wrong and turn around and try to justify regulating something that is not ours to regulate? Should the use of condoms be regulated because there's a chance of disease transmission? Making sure condoms are available? Been to a store lately (or a public restroom for that matter)? They're pretty available. Are stores required by the government to carry condoms? Not the last time I checked. Here's a challenge: find a prostitute without condoms. Do you honestly believe that a brothel would not provide or sell condoms? Do you honestly believe that it would be in the best interest of such a business to not test for STDs?
We don't need the government breathing down our necks.
Why must we regulate everything witht he government. Whatever happened to government by the people for the people? Do we really have to run off and make laws for every aspect of our lives?
The "people don't know what's good for them" attitude is absurd.
We are each responsible for our own actions.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
The US needs more libertarians: http://www.lp.org
My "personal responsibility" bit happens to refer to the natural consequences of our actions. We have to live with the consequences of our actions, that is a REALITY, it has nothing to do with morality. If you don't use a condom, you take certain risks. There are risks even when you do use a condom. Requiring condoms is great, but let's leave that up to the businesses and individuals to decide. You may be surprised at how unregulated the porn industry is. You think they require condoms?
I'm not going to quote you again, but maybe you should look at your posting and see the word "morality" clearly present in it.
My Libertarianism? When did it become mine? I'm registered as independent and think for myself.
I apologize for the misleading statement "The US needs more libertarians" I had actually tried to remove that with the "edit" button because I do not consider myself a libertarian, nor do I agree with the extent to which they would minimize the government. However, I am using an awesome computer, purchased with taxpayer's money years ago, running an amazingly old Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 and the internet connection provided via satellite is painfully slow (yes, I'm currently deployed onboard a US Navy warship). So I'm sorry, I should have deleted it and rewritten, but I'm sort of time-constrained.
I don't fully agree with the Libertarian Party, but I think that just like the Republicans and Democrats, they have some interesting points to make. As someone who was a conservative Christian and followed the Republican Party, I have just recently liberated myself from religion. As an atheist I suddenly find myself without a political party to follow. Not that I fully agreed with the Republican Party before. We have to take each issue separately, but for some reason in this country we like to polarize everything.
I agree with much of what the Republican Party stands for (try to find any official mention of "God" on the GOP website). What I can't stomach is the religious nuts who are defiling a great American Party (the same which abolished slavery and first passed civil rights bills in the 19th century). How did a political party which poineered such important advancements come to be a vehicle for the religious-right? I don't quite know. Political parties are used as vehicles for special interest groups. It is a corruption of America's political system.
I can't agree with the banning of gay marriage, and I'm glad to see there are some Republicans who feel the same (NY State's decision).
I disagree with the Democratic Party's direction and their constant belief that government exists to solve everyone's problems. The socialization of healthcare is not something I agree with. A lot of solutions that are appearing hold no ground. I would consider myself a conservative not because I'm resistant to change, but because I am skeptical. I'm not going to jump into some new idea just because it sounds good. There are a lot of good ideas which sound good, but in reality are counterproductive. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I guess my political dilemma would be better discussed in it's own posting. I'm sure many here would disagree with my political leanings, but I guess that organizing atheists really is akin to "herding cats".
Yes. Let's require everyone to use condoms at all times. How do you propose we enforce that? Sex referees? Cameras?
Well Dr. Del Toro i suppose you would prefer a state of anarchy then. Right, that would make us a great society like we had in the LA riots or post hurricane Katrina. In theory anarchy would be great, but in practice in a country like ours it would fail miserably.
Prostitution has been legal in places and times in the USA. The Union Army in Tenennesse and Louisiana administerd the brothels and the incidents of veneral disease PLUMMETED. For a woman especially to have control over her own body is anathema to women who prefer subjugation by males and males who cannot abide un-subjugated women. Men, religion teaches them, are in authority over the woman, her body and desires.
On this I am a libertarian of the first order. People are allowed to prostitute themselves if they choose. But they are also responsible for their actions. Disease and abuse can be nasty by products and it is not societies responsibility to always come to your rescue when you "roll the dice" with your body.
I very much detest "victimless crimes" that remain on the books. Placed there by fuddy duddies that believe they have a stranglehold on the truth.
Hi Nolan - I agree entirely with your sentiments. But (no point in posting otherwise!) I never associate myself with libertarians, even if I might overlap on some issues with them, because their majority of their views are so appalling for the majority. The libertarians I have met (only a few - we don't get so many in the UK), espoused views which work just fine in a world of 3 people. Thereafter suddenly they seem selfish and utterly childish in fact.
I think my views on this are just plain liberal. Folks should be allowed to do what they like while those actions don't hurt others. And if you have to manufacture hurt to society (which the religious do on this subject) then there is no real meeting point for a discussion.