Does Firefly promote Prostitution?

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Monday, January 26, 2004 05:41
VIEWED: 17201
PAGE 6 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, January 23, 2004 8:35 AM

Quote:
All these prohibitions were put in place when they were seen as a problem.

Anything can be seen as a problem. Not having the right religion can be seen as a problem. Criticizing the government can be seen as a problem. Television shows that sidestep cursing laws by cursing in a foreign language can be seen as a problem. The question is, who gets to decide what is seen as "a problem"? How much power does the government get to have to declare "problems" and what limits should there be against such power?

Quote:
Morality is a function of our environment and the potential consequences of our actions. If someone has to clean up the mess you made, well that someone is gonna make sure you don't do whatever it was that created that mess in the first place.

If you don't like cleaning up the mess I made, you can always choose to NOT CLEAN IT UP.

There is a psychotherapeutic term used in drug addiction treatment called "enabling." Enabling is the assistance well-meaning friends and family of drug addicts give to keep the drug addict from hitting bottom. They pay the addict's rent, for example, when it was squandered on drugs. It keeps the addict from becoming homeless. But if they hadn't paid the rent, the addict would be more motivated to clean up his own mess, having had to experience its natural consequences. So paying his rent actually makes his bad choices less painful and "enables" the addict to continue his addiction longer. In the end, the assistance is more self-serving than truly helpful.

"Morality" as you put it, is simply people's inability to tolerate other people's messes. It is the legal equivalent of the obsessive-compulsive need for cleanliness and is ultimately self-serving. Yes, mistakes are messy. But people have to be allowed to make them, and learn from them, to learn independence and responsibility.

I am not saying there are no "problems" or that people with problems shouldn't get help. I am saying we who choose to help should take responsibility for our own choices and not blame it all on people with "problems."

Moreover, prostitution and drug abuse and not wearing seat belts are not "problems" that involve force against others. As a Libertarian, I believe that solutions involving government force should generally be reserved for problems that involve someone initiating force (with a few exceptions). All other problems can be addressed with non-forceful, non-violent solutions.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

DRAKON

Friday, January 23, 2004 9:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:

But the ban on marijuana has not failed? I disagree...

You are disagreeing only with yourself.

Look, The only thing I was trying to argue against was the idea that morality is somehow disconnected from reality. That it exists "out there" or in the mind, or is just made up with no concern nor feedback from the real world effects moral (or immoral) actions have on both the idividual and/or society.

You want to argue that the prohibition against marijuana has failed, you need to find someone who disagrees with that position. All I did was point out that at the time, violations against the prohibitions against drinking were widespread and obvious. That is why Prohibition against alcohol got reversed.

Pot smokers were not as prevelent, nor nearly as obvious about their violations of self same laws, and so those laws did not get reversed. Its nothing more than a description of the causitive mechanism.

Quote:
For some folks if its the choice between prohibitions on drink, or get beat up by a drunk husband, they'll sacrifice liberty to avoid getting killed.

Quote:

But should they be able to sacrifice my liberty, because they married a drunk? I vote 'no'.

You vote no, and everyone else vote yes, you lose in a democracy. And they would be justified in doing so, simply to stop the mess they get stuck cleaning up, by folks using the freedom irresponsibly. If you are irresponsible in utilizing your freedoms, and as a result leave a mess for others to clean up, they are going to vote against you. Out of pure self preservation.

The problem is not the opposition camp. The problem is among your own camp, who are screwing it up for everyone.

Quote:
I'm generally in favor of freedom over protection. The only things that should be crimes are actions that violate the freedoms of others, in my mind. Homicide, rape, arson - these all affect others. More minor things like public drunkeness, or assualt also affect others, just less so (BTW, for anyone who didn't know, assualt is threatening violence). But I were using herion right now, alone in my house...that affects no one but myself.
...I'm not, by the way.

Again, you need to find someone who disagrees with you to argue this point. The problem, again, was this was not what was happening. Folks were getting drunk and causing problems for others. Folks were making messes that someone else got stuck cleaning up. Cleaning up someone else's mess is never fun, and most folks don't like it. So they will do what they see as necessary to prevent getting stuck like that.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Friday, January 23, 2004 9:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"Those willing to sacrifice liberty for security shall not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Benjamin Franklin.

Its a nice sentiment, but if it gets you killed, it ain't worth a damn. It makes a nice sound bite, but as a matter of practical advice, its not that good.

Besides which, the Temperance Unions were not sacrificing THEIR liberty, as they didn't drink. They were sacrificing the liberty of others.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Friday, January 23, 2004 9:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Doran:
The fact is, it appears that the legalized protitution in the Firefly world is actually Alliance sponsored.

I don't think it is Alliance sponsored so much as Companion Guild sponsored.

Making prostitution illegal, well, it still hasn't stamped it out. And by forcing it underground, has opened a whole nest of nastiness, especially near slavery to pimps. Remember Nandi's comments about the former owner of the "Heart of Gold"?

As a response to these kinds of excesses, I imagine the prostitutes unionized and rebelled. Got legislation passed to give their profession legal status, thereby throwing off the pimps and slave masters, as well as offering a better "product" to their clients.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Friday, January 23, 2004 10:12 AM

I agree with CANTTAKESKY:

Quote:
Yes, mistakes are messy. But people have to be allowed to make them, and learn from them, to learn independence and responsibility.

To say the same thing with different words:

I hear people yabber on about individual responsibility. Seems they never stop to realize that you can't teach responsibility by denying the pupil the chance to practise it -- or by protecting him from the consequences of his own actions.

DRAKON

Friday, January 23, 2004 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Be aware that I'm playing devil's advocate in my post, and don't neccesarily support all these extreme measures.

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
The only things that should be crimes are actions that violate the freedoms of others, in my mind. Homicide, rape, arson - these all affect others.

But what if you lived in Canada, or somewhere else with a socialized health care system? Consider this scenario: Some Canadian smokes ciggarettes, inhaling cancer-causing nicotine. The tar and carbon monoxide probably don't help either. Eventually he gets cancer, and 5 doctors have to slice a tumor out of him in a giant operation. The Canadian taxpayer unfairly has to pay the bill due to someone's negligence.

Also, when you say that bans don't work, you may be right. But we could make them work by raising the penalties until they violate the Constitution. If we had all illegal drug possesion punishable by death, we'd have a lot less drug addicts. Of course, we'd also have to give our cops M-16s and bulletproof vests.

One way to stop the tobacco problem completely would be to ban it for everybody born in the 21st century. Then everybody born after 2000 would know that if they smoked they'd get 150 years in jail. For addicted immigrants, you'd just deport them.

But that's just babble. I say legalize drugs, prostitution and gambling, but you'd need a permit for the first two, and you'd need to pass a class about the risks. Of course, you'd also need to let me have an assault rifle for defense against drugged-up theives.

I would agree with the following caveats and addendums. Increase the penalty, or more fully enforce laws against drunk (or intoxicated) driving, public nuisance laws, etc. Give employers the right to fire people for being drunk or intoxicated on the job, without risk of lawsuit. Which also means making drug testing by employers unactionable. It may be an invasion of privacy, however, the employer's liability has to be reduced somehow.

This would also mean unions not protecting members that screw up. And that, I am not sure is going to happen any time soon.

Not so sure about the permit thing, or classes. That is just handing power back to the government. I understand the goal, reducing the risk to society for the actions of a few, I am just not sure that is the way to go about it. Sometimes arbitrary age limits are better than having some kind of cop decide who is, and is not, responsible enough for an activity.

In some ways, it seems this weird prohibition does work in reducing society's risks. It forces those who take drugs to do so responsibly, out of sight of the rest, and to clean up their own mess. And when the problem gets visible, well, the drug user is not acting responsibily, and it gives the courts the means to take care of the problem before it gets too damaging.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

LOADANDMAKEREADY

Friday, January 23, 2004 10:39 AM

Quote:
You vote no, and everyone else vote yes, you lose in a democracy.

Which is why the people who created this country tried to prevent Democracy.

As James Madison put it, "A common passion or interest will always sway a majority, and there is no inducement to prevent them from sacrificing the weaker party. Hence it is that democracies have ever been incompatible with personal liberty, and rights to property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

The prohibitions mentioned, alcohol, (some) drugs, firearms, &c., were not created to solve some "problem," but were instead attempts to "control" an unpopular minority. Also to expand and consolidate political power.

Many people view politicians as problem solvers. If that were true, then pretty soon we wouldn't have any problems to speak of, and would have little need for politicians.
It is actually in the best interest of political careers that we have as many problems as they can possibly create for us.

The unspoken motto of any government, bureaucracy, or lobbying group is: "If you solve the problem, you're out of a job."

DRAKON

Friday, January 23, 2004 11:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:

"Yes, permits for drug use is a good idea, one I'd support. Same goes for prostitution."

Steve, when someone else can tell you what you may or may not do with your own body -- through "permits" or any other device -- they are claiming a property right in, and ownership of, your body. This is in short ... slavery.

"And I'm all for the second amendment...but...an assualt rifle?"
-Steve

I don't care what you own ... only how you use it! In short; every man, every woman, every responsible child, has an absolute, innate, inherent, inalienable, natural, civil, Constitutional, and human right to acquire and own any handgun, any rifle, any shotgun, any machine gun -- ANYTHING! -- and to carry it, openly or concealed, any place, any time, without asking anybodys permission.

In my view, you are the absolute owner of your own life. And you have the right to live your life in any manner you choose. Provided, that you do not forcibly interfere with anyone else's right to live their life in what ever manner they choose.

The ONLY thing I would argue is that our lives affect others. And sometimes other people get left dealing with the consequences of our own freely chosen actions, both intended as well as unintended. And that is where the whole problem originates with this grand notion.

There is a contradiction in the very concept of "rights". In practical terms, your right to say, own a gun, means that I have no freedom to stop you. And personally I don't care as long as your gun ownership is not a problem to me, does not result in a mess I have to clean up. But when you make it my problem, I'll deal with it in what I think is the best way, whether you like it or not.

We can work out a "social contract", agree that you have the right to own guns, or whatever obligations you want to place on me, as long as the same obligations are reciprocated, as long as I can place the same obligations on you. That includes the obligation to practice your freedom in a responsible manner, so as not to cause me any problems. You don't break the deal, I won't. But if you do, then I am no longer bound by those the obligations you have placed on me.

[It should be noted that this only works in the area of "negative rights" My obligation in recognizing your right to own guns is inaction as a response to that ownership. To do nothing to stop you. However, if you claim say, a right to housing, or medical care, or my property, then we got a problem. If you can build your own house, you don't need a right to housing, nor me to build you one. And if you cannot, then you cannot reciprocate, offer me the equivalent obligation in return.]

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Friday, January 23, 2004 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:

All adults who wish to indulge in drugs should receive their fix free from the government pharmacy...so long as they qualify for and maintain their license...qualification including a reasonable amount of hours caring for drug-related victims (AIDS, accident victims, babies, etc.).

Why should the taxpayers support your drug habit? (I am using you in the metaphorical sense, as this sounds like crap when one keeps referring to "one" or "someone" or "they")

You got a desire. YOU fulfill that desire, don't make it a burden on me (a taxpayer) You get a job, or grow your own or whatever. Don't make me an involuntary party to it.

And that right there demostrates the whole problem. Once you start making others unwilling accomplices, those unwilling accomplices will do what it takes to stop accomplicing. If that means locking up drug users, or even killing them, well, it solves the taxpayer's problem quite effectively.

You may not get your fix, may end up in prison, or even dead. But the only reason why that would occur is because you made me part of your actions and I didn't want to be.

It puts you in a difficult place to argue for. You want to follow your desires, why can't I follow mine to be free of the burden you are putting on me? Why should your desire trump mine?

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Friday, January 23, 2004 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Now this, I'm gonna have to disagree with. Carrying a submachine gun through a shopping mall - gonna have to say 'no' on that one. I don't want corporations to be able to purchase tanks and jet-fighters, either. I mean, hey, I'm all about freedom...but you need to draw the line somewhere. Way, way in the distance, past the horizen, farther away than anyone will probably ever go...but somewhere, a line must exist.
-Steve

Congratulations. Now you see the problem. I think everyone agrees with that sentiment. What they don't agree with is exactly where that line should be drawn. Some will say "no private ownership of ICBMs. Some will say, no drugs and prostitution.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE