Reid Goes After Brothels

[Lewkowski]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...859827168.html

Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada called Tuesday for the state's brothel industry to be outlawed, saying Nevada's connection with prostitution harmed its image and could damage its ability to bring in investment.

"If we want to attract businesses to Nevada that puts people back to work, the time has come for us to outlaw prostitution," Mr. Reid told the Nevada state Legislature in Carson City.

Mr. Reid also said he had talked to "parents who don't want their children to look out of a school bus and see a brothel or to live in a state with the wrong kind of red lights."Mr. Reid maintains conservative Mormon values personally but has long tolerated Nevada's legal sin industries and is a powerful advocate for casino firms. In gatherings, he often tells audiences how his mother washed laundry for the brothel in Searchlight, the small town Mr. Reid grew up in outside Las Vegas.

Political observers said they believed his remarks were the first time he had spoken out on the topic. "This is a complete shock," said Barbara Brents, a professor at University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who has studied the state's prostitution industry and said she had discussed it with Mr. Reid.

As word of Mr. Reid's stance got out, brothel owners and prostitutes descended on Carson City to represent their cause. In Nevada, brothels are taxed legally in many rural counties, with taxes levied at the county level going toward local services, such as ambulances. But prostitution isn't allowed in Las Vegas or Reno, the state's two biggest cities, and isn't taxed or regulated by the state.

Mr. Reid said in his remarks Tuesday he had talked to a business owner who had decided not to locate in Nevada's Storey County, because it had legal brothels. However, Ms. Brents said research hadn't shown a link between corporate investment and brothels.

Dave Damore, a political-science professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said Mr. Reid was likely speaking out now to try to stave off any revival of efforts to tax brothels in response to the state's multibillion-dollar budget deficit. Some fear that could lead to legal expansion of prostitution to urban counties.

Two years ago, the brothel industry urged a $5 tax on acts of prostitution as the legislature tried to close a budget gap. Advocates said it would raise around $2 million annually.

The initiative received little support in the legislature. George Flint, a lobbyist for Nevada's brothel industry, couldn't be reached for comment.

******

Nanny state strikes again! Driving a car without a seat belt, paying folks for sex (or offering yourself for money), playing a state lottery or a roulette table, consuming drugs or driving a motorcycle without a helmet should all be legal. If you do not directly harm others with your consensual acts then big brother needs to back off.

Now personally I find drug use pathetic. I have moral objections to getting drunk and adultery. And I think driving without a seat belt to be the height of stupidity. However there is a little thing called freedom that people *claim* to value. That includes the freedom for other people to do things you find distasteful.

[Ominous Gamer]

Leave it to Lewk to equate prostitution with seat belts

[Lewkowski]

Leave it to Lewk to equate prostitution with seat belts

The philosophy behind banning each activity is the exactly the same: The State knows better then the individual.

[Illusions]

Nanny state strikes again! Driving a car without a seat belt...driving a motorcycle without a helmet should all be legal. If you do not directly harm others with your consensual acts then big brother needs to back off.

You do directly harm others. There is the extra cost of public resources if you die on the scene, plus if another driver is involved they've just gone from being involved in an accident, to a potential manslaughter charge (or also having to live with the guilt of having killed someone), simply because you felt you needed the FREEEEEDOOOMMMM!!!! to not wear a helmet or seat belt. The benefits far outweigh and outclass the costs.

The philosophy behind banning each activity is the exactly the same: The State knows better then the individual.

Uhh, no, its the same philosophy as the one that creates laws to make murder, theft, rape, etc. punishable offenses...that participating in these activities is directly harmful to the society that the government was created to protect.

[Lewkowski]

Illusions:

You do directly harm others. There is the extra cost of public resources if you die on the scene, plus if another driver is involved they've just gone from being involved in an accident, to a potential manslaughter charge (or also having to live with the guilt of having killed someone), simply because you felt you needed the FREEEEEDOOOMMMM!!!!

Source for how much that costs? I'm just wondering what dollar figure you place on freedom. After all I'm pretty sure we could save far more lives then seat belts if we mandated a 35 MPH speed limit on all highways. Heck why even allow cars in our cities? Leave the roads clear for commerce only and force all citizens to use public transportation! That will save lives won't it?

Uhh, no, its the same philosophy as the one that creates laws to make murder, theft, rape, etc. punishable offenses...that participating in these activities is directly harmful to the society that the government was created to protect.

See theft, rape and murder all directly harm other people. They aren't vice crimes. The basic social contract is that I sacrifice some freedoms for safety. However you want laws that protect people from themselves. That is the fundamental rape and violation of personal freedom and autonomy.

The very logic you use about "society being a better place" can be used to justify damn near anything. No working on Sunday because its good for society! No fatty foods because its good for society! Ban tobacco because its good for society! No music that offends people because its good for society!

[Ominous Gamer]

You do directly harm others

See theft, rape and murder all directly harm other people. They aren't vice crimes.

This reading comprehension fail has been brought to you by the letter D.


I wonder how many times we are going to bring this up (and how many people have to explain it in layman's terms), before Lewk either gives up or it finally clicks.

[Illusions]

Source for how much that costs?

I'm fairly certain its variable depending on the severity of the accident.

I'm just wondering what dollar figure you place on freedom.

This is a pretty lame debate tactic. Not all "freedoms" are equal, or wanted. For instance someone should not have the freedom to murder their neighbor. Also the freedom to not wear a seat belt is not comparable to say freedom of speech, the freedom to practice your own religion, or the natural rights associated with say life. Your attempt to conflate all freedoms as equal is disingenuous at best.

After all I'm pretty sure we could save far more lives then seat belts if we mandated a 35 MPH speed limit on all highways. Heck why even allow cars in our cities? Leave the roads clear for commerce only and force all citizens to use public transportation! That will save lives won't it?

The point was to illustrate that you were not entirely accurate in your belief that choosing not to wear a seat belt or helmet for motorcycles does not affect other people. You also completely ignored that more people would likely be charged with manslaughter, or have to deal with the guilt of having killed someone.

See theft, rape and murder all directly harm other people. They aren't vice crimes. The basic social contract is that I sacrifice some freedoms for safety. However you want laws that protect people from themselves. That is the fundamental rape and violation of personal freedom and autonomy.

I'm not for laws concerning certain vice crimes, I'm attempting to explain the logic people will use behind passing them.

The very logic you use about "society being a better place" can be used to justify damn near anything. No working on Sunday because its good for society! No fatty foods because its good for society! Ban tobacco because its good for society! No music that offends people because its good for society!

Which is part of what I was trying to illustrate. People who do these things aren't always doing them because they feel they can make better choices than others, but because they feel its better for society, or something the government was created to do.

[Khendraja'aro]

The point was to illustrate that you were not entirely accurate in your belief that choosing not to wear a seat belt or helmet for motorcycles does not affect other people. You also completely ignored that more people would likely be charged with manslaughter, or have to deal with the guilt of having killed someone.

Not to mention the paramedics and everyone else involved in a car accident who surely love to scrape brain off a street.

[Dreadnaught]

If a Republican proposed this, it would be national news and the New York Times would wring its hands at the Republican "encroachment" on people's sex lives.

[Veldan Rath]

Kinda like if the Republicans fled the State of Wisconsin to avoid a vote, they would be called names.

Makes you wonder why a State Constitution would have such an silly rule to be used in such an obvious underhanded way.

[Nessus]

It seems the seat belt thing was more interesting, but on that rights and prostitution thing: It is usually done via pimping out victims of human trafficking and/or drug addicts. John Holmes's drug dealer used to make whores eat his ass for drugs, that's not people (in this case women) exercising their rights as libertarians, that's taking advantage of people. I'm not surprised Lewk's championing this behaviour though, what I'd like to know is whether he thinks the drug dealer in question should have shot the women who refused to lick his asshole clean.

Kinda like if the Republicans fled the State of Wisconsin to avoid a vote, they would be called names.

It's not effectively much different than what the Pubs are doing on a federal level right now, soooo

If a Republican proposed this, it would be national news and the New York Times would wring its hands at the Republican "encroachment" on people's sex lives.

It just seems that most times when a Pubbie goes after this kind of stuff, he's feeling guilty about his latest chick with a dick encounter. Although it wouldn't surprise me if this spreads to the Dem side too given how the US is in a perpetual flux towards the right.

[Draco]

I was about to create a separate topic on victimless crimes, but this one is just about that, even though it was started with the topic of brothels in Nevada.

You do directly harm others. There is the extra cost of public resources if you die on the scene, plus if another driver is involved they've just gone from being involved in an accident, to a potential manslaughter charge (or also having to live with the guilt of having killed someone), simply because you felt you needed the FREEEEEDOOOMMMM!!!! to not wear a helmet or seat belt. The benefits far outweigh and outclass the costs.

So essentially, it's ok to give up certain liberties for some safety? As Benjamin Franklin said..it's sad that the quote has lost its meaning in todays nanny state world. It's my life, hence it should be my choice as to whether I wear a seat belt or not, or whether I wear a helmet whilst driving a motorbike or even a bicycle. I make my own choices and then accept responsibility for them. You're supporting the government to tell its citizens what is best for them and how to run their lives. So tell me where you personally draw the line?

If I'm going about my day, in a way where I do not pose any threat, nor harm to another individual, then what business does the government have to tell me that what I'm doing is wrong?

Not to mention the paramedics and everyone else involved in a car accident who surely love to scrape brain off a street.

Yeah well that's their job isn't it?

[Being]

So essentially, it's ok to give up certain liberties for some safety? As Benjamin Franklin said..it's sad that the quote has lost its meaning in todays nanny state world. It's my life, hence it should be my choice as to whether I wear a seat belt or not, or whether I wear a helmet whilst driving a motorbike or even a bicycle. I make my own choices and then accept responsibility for them. You're supporting the government to tell its citizens what is best for them and how to run their lives. So tell me where you personally draw the line?

I mentioned it in another thread but I'll repeat it here for your benefit. The laws you speak of are meant to protect others from harm, not you. The insurance industry was instrumental in formulating those laws because you getting hurt (whether it's due to your own stupidity or not) harms them.

[Nessus]

So essentially, it's ok to give up certain liberties for some safety? As Benjamin Franklin said..it's sad that the quote has lost its meaning in todays nanny state world. It's my life, hence it should be my choice as to whether I wear a seat belt or not, or whether I wear a helmet whilst driving a motorbike or even a bicycle. I make my own choices and then accept responsibility for them. You're supporting the government to tell its citizens what is best for them and how to run their lives. So tell me where you personally draw the line?

If I'm going about my day, in a way where I do not pose any threat, nor harm to another individual, then what business does the government have to tell me that what I'm doing is wrong?
_____________________

Yeah well that's their job isn't it?

I like the cognitive dissonance here.

Tell me, if and when your non-seat-belt-wearing ways cause government-funded workers to, you know, scrape bits of you from all over the place, are you costing the government something?

Oh, but nothing ever is supposed to be funded by the government, right? Neat how that works out.

[Draco]

I mentioned it in another thread but I'll repeat it here for your benefit. The laws you speak of are meant to protect others from harm, not you. The insurance industry was instrumental in formulating those laws because you getting hurt (whether it's due to your own stupidity or not) harms them.

Right..so the ends justify the means then?

I like the cognitive dissonance here.

And I like how presumptuous you can get.

Tell me, if and when your non-seat-belt-wearing ways cause government-funded workers to, you know, scrape bits of you from all over the place, are you costing the government something?

Obviously.
So to avoid any potential costs, we should endorse such laws, 'just in case'. But why stop there, the government should force all car manufacturing companies to set a top speed limit on their cars of 60km/hr, because otherwise we may have blood and brains decorating our streets..but it's ok, because the people will be safer in the end.

Or how about they make another law where it's illegal for females to wear revealing clothes. Their arms, legs, and chest must be completely covered because otherwise they might be raped.

Oh, but nothing ever is supposed to be funded by the government, right? Neat how that works out.

And here you go again with your oversimplifications.

I'll say it again, my life, my body, my choices. The majority of drivers out there do not have the mind of a 5 year old, most people are responsible enough, and a lot more value their lives even more to not risk it.

[Nessus]

And I like how presumptuous you can get.

Reading your posts hardly qualifies for presumptuous behaviour.

Obviously.
So to avoid any potential costs, we should endorse such laws, 'just in case'. But why stop there, the government should force all car manufacturing companies to set a top speed limit on their cars of 60km/hr, because otherwise we may have blood and brains decorating our streets..but it's ok, because the people will be safer in the end.

Let's call it 100 klicks per hour, and reserve the right to make police, emergency and military vehicles that can drive at any speed, and I can support this.

Or how about they make another law where it's illegal for females to wear revealing clothes. Their arms, legs, and chest must be completely covered because otherwise they might be raped.

Oh look, a conservative slut-blaming. How original and entirely unexpected.

And here you go again with your oversimplifications.

I'll say it again, my life, my body, my choices. The majority of drivers out there do not have the mind of a 5 year old, most people are responsible enough, and a lot more value their lives even more to not risk it.

So you're just good enough a driver, huh? What about that meth-head truck driver who plows into your shotgun seat? Are you a ninja enough not to need a seat belt there? This whole rhetoric of "me me me" is really tiresome and morally objectionable.

The choices you make implicitly affect the lives of other people. Unless you decide to go off the grid and live as a sustenance farmer, which frankly seems like the best option for all parties concerned.

[Being]

Right..so the ends justify the means then?

The point is you don't have the right to harm others.

[Draco]

Oh look, a conservative slut-blaming. How original and entirely unexpected.

But I was following your, and others, line of reasoning. It's better to be safe than sorry as the saying goes. You know 'just in case.' Right?

So you're just good enough a driver, huh? What about that meth-head truck driver who plows into your shotgun seat? Are you a ninja enough not to need a seat belt there? This whole rhetoric of "me me me" is really tiresome and morally objectionable.

I never said I don't wear a seat belt (anyway it's illegal in the nanny state that has become Australia), I always do. If someone else doens't and they die as a result, or become paralised, then it's their responsbility. But if the accident was caused by some meth-head truck driver, then the blame is entirely on them.

The choices you make implicitly affect the lives of other people. Unless you decide to go off the grid and live as a sustenance farmer, which frankly seems like the best option for all parties concerned.

The likes of not wearing a seat belt, or not wearing a helmet, affect the actual life/lives of the person/people who decide not to strap on the seat belt or don the helmet. The other person involved in the accident, whether they may have caused it or not, will be affected mentally (assuming they survive), but it's not the role of the government to create these 'just in case laws.'

The point is you don't have the right to harm others.

Do you mean harm the insurance company, or physically harm others? Because you mentioned the insurance companies, now you say 'harm others.' Oh and I can just as easily use the '' smiley on you.

So someone tell me, why exactly the government has the right to say that you must wear a seat belt or a helmet, or anything else that is deemed to protect you, when it is your own life that you have responsibility of?

Car accidents can still happen, even if seat belts are not mandatory, hell they still happen when they are. It's not very convincing. Rather it seems to be more along the lines of "Because then someone will die...brains will be littering the road...it's for peoples safety because they can't take control of their own lives." And so on.

[Nessus]

How am I supposed to respond when you say you won't acknowledge some portions of the conversation? You keep spouting the same fallacies over and over alright, but it is unclear what you expect from my side of the aisle. If you won't discuss the most crucial parts of the conversation, what are you discussing at all? rar rar me me me? Good job there.

And rights to abortion and same sex marriage are entirely different from the "right" of not having to wear a seat belt or not beating up faggots, but I'm aware how difficult angry Internet libertarians find this chasm.

Why is physical harm more important than financial harm, esp. given that you're behaving like a typical Randroid? Money's the end all be all of your existence, so long as it is your own. What right does the non-seat-belt-wearer have to rob you of some of that money?

[Draco]

How am I supposed to respond when you say you won't acknowledge some portions of the conversation? If you won't discuss the most crucial parts of the conversation, what are you discussing at all?

I already have.

And rights to abortion and same sex marriage are entirely different from the "right" of not having to wear a seat belt or not beating up faggots, but I'm aware how difficult angry Internet libertarians find this chasm.

So where do you draw the line, tell me?

Why is physical harm more important than financial harm, esp. given that you're behaving like a typical Randroid? Money's the end all be all of your existence, so long as it is your own. What right does the non-seat-belt-wearer have to rob you of some of that money?

Because it's my own life? It's the life of the person next door, across the street, on the other side of the city? As for financial harm, I'm still not going to support a law because it's also protecting insurance companies/tax payers/whoever from paying the bill. I've already told you that I'm unsure on that matter, as to who should 'pick up the bill' for the blood and brains on the street, or the paralysed person (assuming they have no other means of support).

[Lebanese Dragon]

Source for how much that costs? I'm just wondering what dollar figure you place on freedom. After all I'm pretty sure we could save far more lives then seat belts if we mandated a 35 MPH speed limit on all highways

Are you kidding me? If you want to frame it that way, then we always put a price on our freedoms. Whether we say you can't go 70mph if you want to in a residential area. Or we have other laws. They are a trade off agreed upon by the community you operate in. As they say absolute freedom isn't free. We gain more freedoms and consitency by agreeing to rules. The rules take into account the values and risks associated with actions of the people involved.

So your right 35mph may save more lives, but we've agreed to up our chances of dying, as a society, in exchange for the benefit that driving 70mph offers us. It's an agreeable risk. If society deems it unagreeable on net, then it will be both illegal and immoral to drive that fast. Your placing people under a risk that they don't accept, it's their life your risking so they have entitlements.

The law states that since Draco crashed into you from behind it would automatically be his fault and thus vehicular manslaughter. Wonder if Lewk would fry 'im?

I don't think he would fry him but that does bring interesting questions on, if we did make it optional, if that should be sufficient to constitute manslaughter. Or what if a person buys some lame small car and dies in the hit? But if you had hit a bigger car both would have lived. Is it really fair to penalize on the consequence of the action, as opposed to the statistically reasonable harm of the action? I guess on net it all levels out, but it's kinda lame to think for the same crime one person would face a heavy penalty another little by sheer luck. hmmmm...

[Nessus]

I'm still not going to support a law because it's also protecting insurance companies/tax payers/whoever from paying the bill.

And how is that a bad thing? You hate taxes, remember?

[Nessus]

I've never said that. I'm against taxes being used on unnecessary ventures, such as welfare (although I do recognise, and have mentioned in the previous topic, that there are situations where the person/people really have no where to turn to, but the government. I'm undecided there), 'free' healthcare, and such.

Are 'free' police, firemen and teachers permissible?

[Lewkowski]

Not wearing seat belts only causes possible incidental harm to others (road kill/*maybe* insurance). Ditto with incident harm caused by choosing to eat too many fatty foods.

Hookers only cause possible incidental harm to others. (Moral fiber of society blather, maybe increase STD however an argument can be made that decriminalization actually makes that less likely.)

Hookers/seat belts/drug use/gambling are all in the same category. They are banned even though the people being harmed by the activity are the ones that are taking part in that activity.

Again the argument for "it costs more to clean up the mess" opens the door to mandating all sorts of behavior just because it could potentially cost less money. Hell under that premise you could outright ban motorcycles.

[RandBlade]

Not wearing seat belts only causes possible incidental harm to others (road kill/*maybe* insurance).

Maybe?

Anyway, not wearing seat belts can result in the death of others.

Not making a point but: Heard a story once that my girlfriend's father lost a friend due to no seat belt. He got flung half-way through the sun-roof and his body had to be removed from getting stuck inside the sun-roof :Puke:

[Lewkowski]

Maybe?

Anyway, not wearing seat belts can result in the death of others.

Not making a point but: Heard a story once that my girlfriend's father lost a friend due to no seat belt. He got flung half-way through the sun-roof and his body had to be removed from getting stuck inside the sun-roof :Puke:

Driving large trucks and SUV's can cause deaths too. Should we ban them? The likely chance of a person being flung from a vehicle to smash into another vehicle and kill someone that way is pretty far fetched. Might as well ban all nuclear power since something "might" happen.

[Illusions]

Driving large trucks and SUV's can cause deaths too.

Which is why we have laws concerning how to drive, and who is in the wrong when collisions happen, etc.

[Lewkowski]

Which is why we have laws concerning how to drive, and who is in the wrong when collisions happen, etc.

Yes but the mere fact that someone is driving a massive vehicle makes them more likely to kill people even if they obey every rule of the road. Should we ban those vehicles to save lives unless they are needed for commercial purposes? After all the goal is to slave lives and freedom be damned right?

[Ominous Gamer]

They are banned even though the people being harmed by the activity are the ones that are taking part in that activity.

You're not talking about seatbelts here, really wish you would stay focused.

[Lewkowski]

You're not talking about seatbelts here, really wish you would stay focused.

Gee and I thought the OP was about brothels....