LOYAL AG said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

AGC said:

---

Teslag said:

---

People can responsible use drugs. See all the high end bourbon drinkers on the outdoors board.

---

Are those the ones going to jail for drug crimes like you said? Or are you moving the goalposts?

---

Well, bourbon is not illegal...so...

---

And here's the crux of the matter. 100 years ago you'd be ok with jailing people that today you are fine with them being free. The Rebecca Creek I had tonight isn't any different than the bourbon our great grandparents would have been arrested for during prohibition yet because some Karen decided she knew better 100 years ago it was illegal. When is it ok for a person to make their own decisions in their own home? Or is it?

---

And just like society had the political decision available to outlaw alcohol and then reverse course, the people have the ability to decide whether illicit acts or substances should be banned in society. Your premise that individuals have the right to do anything they want as long as it doesn't have a direct and immediate impact on others is absurd and frankly childish. A just society has the moral authority to ban things that are identified as bad for the individual based on the understanding that the individual is a part of the society. You are not an island unto yourself, and you don't have the right to do whatever your heart desires.

You have the liberty and freedom to do what you ought to. Not what you want to.

That's a lot of words to say you're just a hypocrite

Teslag said:

---

That's a lot of words to say you're just a hypocrite

---

No. It's a lot of words to say that you wanting to bang hookers doesn't mean prostitution should be legal.

Not surprised that basic moral concepts fly over your head, though.

I don't do that or use drugs. Both should be legal. It doesn't harm me.

Teslag said:

---

I don't do that or use drugs. Both should be legal. It doesn't harm me.

---

If you have a daughter, hopefully you tuck her in tonight and tell her that one day she can reach her full potential and be a prostitute. Since it doesn't harm you, it must not be bad for her. Maybe give her some tips on where she can score some illicit drugs in the future too. Doesn't harm you, so that must be ok.

Oh boy here's the appeal to emotion

Teslag said:

---

Oh boy here's the appeal to emotion

---

Feel free to rebut it.

Emotional appeals don't deserve rebuttals. Bring logical arguments or nothing at all.

Teslag said:

---

Emotional appeals don't deserve rebuttals. Bring logical arguments or nothing at all.

---

There's no logic to pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming that there's no harm created by prostitution or drugs while also refusing to endorse the activities for your loved ones because you know they are harmful and destructive to the individual and those around her?

The only one devoid of logic here is you.

There's a metric **** ton of things I wouldn't want my kid to do, but that doesn't justify me wanting them to be illegal.

Teslag said:

---

There's a metric **** ton of things I wouldn't want my kid to do, but that doesn't justify me wanting them to be illegal.

---

In some cases, it actually does. Because we live in society, and we can use our faculties of reason to make the assessment that certain activities are harmful to both society and the individual. Regardless of whether or not a person "consents" in the moment or whether you feel that you are directly harmed.

Your conception that all that matters is consent in the moment is so incredibly childish. Luckily, it is nowhere near the actual legal standards that we hold in this country.

Have a good one. There's no point in furthering a conversation with you.

Goodnight, enjoy your dreams of theocracy

www.Seekingarrangement.com

is the way to go in a just society which eliminates the worst of the traficking and the pimping.

RoadkillBBQ said:

---

Prostitution should be legal.

---

Getting closer to peak "Days of Noah"

Kvetch said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

AGC said:

---

Teslag said:

---

People can responsible use drugs. See all the high end bourbon drinkers on the outdoors board.

---

Are those the ones going to jail for drug crimes like you said? Or are you moving the goalposts?

---

Well, bourbon is not illegal...so...

---

And here's the crux of the matter. 100 years ago you'd be ok with jailing people that today you are fine with them being free. The Rebecca Creek I had tonight isn't any different than the bourbon our great grandparents would have been arrested for during prohibition yet because some Karen decided she knew better 100 years ago it was illegal. When is it ok for a person to make their own decisions in their own home? Or is it?

---

And just like society had the political decision available to outlaw alcohol and then reverse course, the people have the ability to decide whether illicit acts or substances should be banned in society. Your premise that individuals have the right to do anything they want as long as it doesn't have a direct and immediate impact on others is absurd and frankly childish. A just society has the moral authority to ban things that are identified as bad for the individual based on the understanding that the individual is a part of the society. You are not an island unto yourself, and you don't have the right to do whatever your heart desires.

You have the liberty and freedom to do what you ought to. Not what you want to.

---

That's fair and I appreciate the lack of emotion in that post. My biggest frustration with both major parties the emotional attachment to banning unwanted behavior without even a hint of acknowledgement that those bans aren't actually accomplishing anything and in fact may be making things worse. At some point don't we have to admit we can't prevent these things from happening and focus on the things we can prevent? Then we have the whole issue of unintended consequences such as human trafficking that springs up in the wake of prostitution being illegal.

I'm extremely libertarian despite the fact I live a very conservative life. I barely drink, like 2-3 drinks a month and rarely away from home. I've never been drunk and I've never used anything stronger that bourbon. So why am I libertarian? Because I don't trust you. I don't even know you so why trust you? You want to use government to tell me what I can and can't do and I'm not ok with that.

Then I get back to what actually works. Bans are like war plans. They're the first things tossed aside when the bullets start flying. I'd like to think we can come up with something that actually works to address the very real crime of trafficking women and children and frankly I don't care about prostitution as long as she's there voluntarily. I like solutions and bans are nearly 100% of the time things that change the problem but don't solve anything.

My $.02. Good discussion finally now that we've tossed aside the emotion.

Teslag said:

---

Goodnight, enjoy your dreams of theocracy

---

Step 1 in Kvetchistan...

Gilligan said:

---

Men pay for sex one way or the other…

Just saying!

---

That is something ugly guys say

I understand where you're coming from. But I think you overlook the biggest unintended consequence of taking the libertarian approach. Man is a political animal and we live in society. You cannot maintain a country without a base level of shared values and trust. If a community cannot have a base level of trust that allows for the banning of the most egregious activities that have no redeeming value to society, why the hell am I going to step up and fight for my neighbor when push comes to shove? I'm not because I don't give a rats ass about someone who I don't know and doesn't share my values. And, no, a mutual understanding to leave each other alone is not a value.

Libertarianism is great in theory if you have some common moral bond that underlies your society. But we live in the real world in a multicultural country that is full of threats and getting less cohesive by the day.

Bans may not be 100% effective, but they are still valuable and provide the ability to crack down on enforcement if things are getting out of hand. They are much more effective than throwing your hands in the air and saying "they don't stop 100% of the activity so there's no point in trying."

Y'all can accuse me of being a theocrat all you want (speaking broadly, not to LOYAL AG). It's a cheap excuse for an unwillingness to take a stance for what is obviously right. I have no desire to live with or fight for people that would allow a culture of abuse of women. Your pie in the sky conception of consent is a terrible stand in for actual morality. If you can't put a base level of trust in your countrymen, you have no country.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

AGC said:

---

Teslag said:

---

People can responsible use drugs. See all the high end bourbon drinkers on the outdoors board.

---

Are those the ones going to jail for drug crimes like you said? Or are you moving the goalposts?

---

Well, bourbon is not illegal...so...

---

And here's the crux of the matter. 100 years ago you'd be ok with jailing people that today you are fine with them being free. The Rebecca Creek I had tonight isn't any different than the bourbon our great grandparents would have been arrested for during prohibition yet because some Karen decided she knew better 100 years ago it was illegal. When is it ok for a person to make their own decisions in their own home? Or is it?

---

And just like society had the political decision available to outlaw alcohol and then reverse course, the people have the ability to decide whether illicit acts or substances should be banned in society. Your premise that individuals have the right to do anything they want as long as it doesn't have a direct and immediate impact on others is absurd and frankly childish. A just society has the moral authority to ban things that are identified as bad for the individual based on the understanding that the individual is a part of the society. You are not an island unto yourself, and you don't have the right to do whatever your heart desires.

You have the liberty and freedom to do what you ought to. Not what you want to.

---

That's fair and I appreciate the lack of emotion in that post. My biggest frustration with both major parties the emotional attachment to banning unwanted behavior without even a hint of acknowledgement that those bans aren't actually accomplishing anything and in fact may be making things worse. At some point don't we have to admit we can't prevent these things from happening and focus on the things we can prevent? Then we have the whole issue of unintended consequences such as human trafficking that springs up in the wake of prostitution being illegal.

I'm extremely libertarian despite the fact I live a very conservative life. I barely drink, like 2-3 drinks a month and rarely away from home. I've never been drunk and I've never used anything stronger that bourbon. So why am I libertarian? Because I don't trust you. I don't even know you so why trust you? You want to use government to tell me what I can and can't do and I'm not ok with that.

Then I get back to what actually works. Bans are like war plans. They're the first things tossed aside when the bullets start flying. I'd like to think we can come up with something that actually works to address the very real crime of trafficking women and children and frankly I don't care about prostitution as long as she's there voluntarily. I like solutions and bans are nearly 100% of the time things that change the problem but don't solve anything.

My $.02. Good discussion finally now that we've tossed aside the emotion.

---

How do you reconcile this lack of trust with the complete freedom of individual choice you allow? If you don't trust others why let them do anything they want in the privacy of their homes and assume it won't go anywhere else? That they'll only destroy themselves with those decisions?

AGC said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

AGC said:

---

Teslag said:

---

People can responsible use drugs. See all the high end bourbon drinkers on the outdoors board.

---

Are those the ones going to jail for drug crimes like you said? Or are you moving the goalposts?

---

Well, bourbon is not illegal...so...

---

And here's the crux of the matter. 100 years ago you'd be ok with jailing people that today you are fine with them being free. The Rebecca Creek I had tonight isn't any different than the bourbon our great grandparents would have been arrested for during prohibition yet because some Karen decided she knew better 100 years ago it was illegal. When is it ok for a person to make their own decisions in their own home? Or is it?

---

And just like society had the political decision available to outlaw alcohol and then reverse course, the people have the ability to decide whether illicit acts or substances should be banned in society. Your premise that individuals have the right to do anything they want as long as it doesn't have a direct and immediate impact on others is absurd and frankly childish. A just society has the moral authority to ban things that are identified as bad for the individual based on the understanding that the individual is a part of the society. You are not an island unto yourself, and you don't have the right to do whatever your heart desires.

You have the liberty and freedom to do what you ought to. Not what you want to.

---

That's fair and I appreciate the lack of emotion in that post. My biggest frustration with both major parties the emotional attachment to banning unwanted behavior without even a hint of acknowledgement that those bans aren't actually accomplishing anything and in fact may be making things worse. At some point don't we have to admit we can't prevent these things from happening and focus on the things we can prevent? Then we have the whole issue of unintended consequences such as human trafficking that springs up in the wake of prostitution being illegal.

I'm extremely libertarian despite the fact I live a very conservative life. I barely drink, like 2-3 drinks a month and rarely away from home. I've never been drunk and I've never used anything stronger that bourbon. So why am I libertarian? Because I don't trust you. I don't even know you so why trust you? You want to use government to tell me what I can and can't do and I'm not ok with that.

Then I get back to what actually works. Bans are like war plans. They're the first things tossed aside when the bullets start flying. I'd like to think we can come up with something that actually works to address the very real crime of trafficking women and children and frankly I don't care about prostitution as long as she's there voluntarily. I like solutions and bans are nearly 100% of the time things that change the problem but don't solve anything.

My $.02. Good discussion finally now that we've tossed aside the emotion.

---

How do you reconcile this lack of trust with the complete freedom of individual choice you allow? If you don't trust others why let them do anything they want in the privacy of their homes and assume it won't go anywhere else? That they'll only destroy themselves with those decisions?

---

When you're actions impact others we have an actual crime. There are states where suicide is illegal. That's the dumbest **** in history in a world with a massive amount of stupid **** implemented by nanny state politicians. Government's job is to protect you from me and me from you. It's not to protect you from you or me from me. That's the role of parents and I'm well beyond the age of needing those. In other words when your destructive behavior is no longer confined to your home then we have an actual problem. If you can afford your own drugs then I don't care. Steal from your neighbors or family to fund your addiction and I do.

Ag with kids said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Goodnight, enjoy your dreams of theocracy

---

Step 1 in Kvetchistan...

---

Prohibition movement started in the 1800s and coincides with young men coming home from the civil war carrying trauma with them and only knowing how to medicate with alcohol. Lo and behold we have abusive spouses and fathers for a generation and I'm shocked, shocked I say, that the victims want to outlaw alcohol (therapy isn't a wide spread thing or real profession like it is now).

But for meme purposes it was all part of some old theocratic plot! Let's mock the primary victims of abuse as evil church folk bent on domination! It was also a racket for organized crime but whatever, we're all good with cartels in libertarian-stan, right?

LOYAL AG said:

---

AGC said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

AGC said:

---

Teslag said:

---

People can responsible use drugs. See all the high end bourbon drinkers on the outdoors board.

---

Are those the ones going to jail for drug crimes like you said? Or are you moving the goalposts?

---

Well, bourbon is not illegal...so...

---

And here's the crux of the matter. 100 years ago you'd be ok with jailing people that today you are fine with them being free. The Rebecca Creek I had tonight isn't any different than the bourbon our great grandparents would have been arrested for during prohibition yet because some Karen decided she knew better 100 years ago it was illegal. When is it ok for a person to make their own decisions in their own home? Or is it?

---

And just like society had the political decision available to outlaw alcohol and then reverse course, the people have the ability to decide whether illicit acts or substances should be banned in society. Your premise that individuals have the right to do anything they want as long as it doesn't have a direct and immediate impact on others is absurd and frankly childish. A just society has the moral authority to ban things that are identified as bad for the individual based on the understanding that the individual is a part of the society. You are not an island unto yourself, and you don't have the right to do whatever your heart desires.

You have the liberty and freedom to do what you ought to. Not what you want to.

---

That's fair and I appreciate the lack of emotion in that post. My biggest frustration with both major parties the emotional attachment to banning unwanted behavior without even a hint of acknowledgement that those bans aren't actually accomplishing anything and in fact may be making things worse. At some point don't we have to admit we can't prevent these things from happening and focus on the things we can prevent? Then we have the whole issue of unintended consequences such as human trafficking that springs up in the wake of prostitution being illegal.

I'm extremely libertarian despite the fact I live a very conservative life. I barely drink, like 2-3 drinks a month and rarely away from home. I've never been drunk and I've never used anything stronger that bourbon. So why am I libertarian? Because I don't trust you. I don't even know you so why trust you? You want to use government to tell me what I can and can't do and I'm not ok with that.

Then I get back to what actually works. Bans are like war plans. They're the first things tossed aside when the bullets start flying. I'd like to think we can come up with something that actually works to address the very real crime of trafficking women and children and frankly I don't care about prostitution as long as she's there voluntarily. I like solutions and bans are nearly 100% of the time things that change the problem but don't solve anything.

My $.02. Good discussion finally now that we've tossed aside the emotion.

---

How do you reconcile this lack of trust with the complete freedom of individual choice you allow? If you don't trust others why let them do anything they want in the privacy of their homes and assume it won't go anywhere else? That they'll only destroy themselves with those decisions?

---

When you're actions impact others we have an actual crime. There are states where suicide is illegal. That's the dumbest **** in history in a world with a massive amount of stupid **** implemented by nanny state politicians. Government's job is to protect you from me and me from you. It's not to protect you from you or me from me. That's the role of parents and I'm well beyond the age of needing those. In other words when your destructive behavior is no longer confined to your home then we have an actual problem. If you can afford your own drugs then I don't care. Steal from your neighbors or family to fund your addiction and I do.

---

How does the government protect me if my neighbor, the sole provider for his family, commits suicide? I pay taxes to support his family now. If he's an only child I'm on the hook for his parents. Or his siblings now are if he has any. What happens when his kids spiral out of control with drug addiction, promiscuity, or also commit suicide? Do people rush out to buy homes where copious amounts of drugs have been done? Or does society have to put extra effort into cleaning up the mess? The porn consumer in his own home is consuming exploitation (even stories of women who are compensated talk about drug addiction, alcoholism, and how the companies treat them - it's undeniable at this point).

There is no autonomous individual in this world created by abiogenesis. You believe in something that doesn't exist to justify your inhumanity toward others (what else can we call such callous indifference to suffering?).

I should have deleted my bookmark from this thread a day ago. It has......devolved.

AGC said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

AGC said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

AGC said:

---

Teslag said:

---

People can responsible use drugs. See all the high end bourbon drinkers on the outdoors board.

---

Are those the ones going to jail for drug crimes like you said? Or are you moving the goalposts?

---

Well, bourbon is not illegal...so...

---

And here's the crux of the matter. 100 years ago you'd be ok with jailing people that today you are fine with them being free. The Rebecca Creek I had tonight isn't any different than the bourbon our great grandparents would have been arrested for during prohibition yet because some Karen decided she knew better 100 years ago it was illegal. When is it ok for a person to make their own decisions in their own home? Or is it?

---

And just like society had the political decision available to outlaw alcohol and then reverse course, the people have the ability to decide whether illicit acts or substances should be banned in society. Your premise that individuals have the right to do anything they want as long as it doesn't have a direct and immediate impact on others is absurd and frankly childish. A just society has the moral authority to ban things that are identified as bad for the individual based on the understanding that the individual is a part of the society. You are not an island unto yourself, and you don't have the right to do whatever your heart desires.

You have the liberty and freedom to do what you ought to. Not what you want to.

---

That's fair and I appreciate the lack of emotion in that post. My biggest frustration with both major parties the emotional attachment to banning unwanted behavior without even a hint of acknowledgement that those bans aren't actually accomplishing anything and in fact may be making things worse. At some point don't we have to admit we can't prevent these things from happening and focus on the things we can prevent? Then we have the whole issue of unintended consequences such as human trafficking that springs up in the wake of prostitution being illegal.

I'm extremely libertarian despite the fact I live a very conservative life. I barely drink, like 2-3 drinks a month and rarely away from home. I've never been drunk and I've never used anything stronger that bourbon. So why am I libertarian? Because I don't trust you. I don't even know you so why trust you? You want to use government to tell me what I can and can't do and I'm not ok with that.

Then I get back to what actually works. Bans are like war plans. They're the first things tossed aside when the bullets start flying. I'd like to think we can come up with something that actually works to address the very real crime of trafficking women and children and frankly I don't care about prostitution as long as she's there voluntarily. I like solutions and bans are nearly 100% of the time things that change the problem but don't solve anything.

My $.02. Good discussion finally now that we've tossed aside the emotion.

---

How do you reconcile this lack of trust with the complete freedom of individual choice you allow? If you don't trust others why let them do anything they want in the privacy of their homes and assume it won't go anywhere else? That they'll only destroy themselves with those decisions?

---

When you're actions impact others we have an actual crime. There are states where suicide is illegal. That's the dumbest **** in history in a world with a massive amount of stupid **** implemented by nanny state politicians. Government's job is to protect you from me and me from you. It's not to protect you from you or me from me. That's the role of parents and I'm well beyond the age of needing those. In other words when your destructive behavior is no longer confined to your home then we have an actual problem. If you can afford your own drugs then I don't care. Steal from your neighbors or family to fund your addiction and I do.

---

How does the government protect me if my neighbor, the sole provider for his family, commits suicide? I pay taxes to support his family now. If he's an only child I'm on the hook for his parents. Or his siblings now are if he has any. What happens when his kids spiral out of control with drug addiction, promiscuity, or also commit suicide? Do people rush out to buy homes where copious amounts of drugs have been done? Or does society have to put extra effort into cleaning up the mess? The porn consumer in his own home is consuming exploitation (even stories of women who are compensated talk about drug addiction, alcoholism, and how the companies treat them - it's undeniable at this point).

There is no autonomous individual in this world created by abiogenesis. You believe in something that doesn't exist to justify your inhumanity toward others (what else can we call such callous indifference to suffering?).

---

Got my roof done a few months ago - those guys end up destroying their bodies for little money and no benefits. As a previous poster pointed out, top 5 deadliest job in the US. If they die - same situation. Should that job be banned?

Went to the rodeo. Bull riders are fun to watch. Can't imagine what their bodies feel like in retirement just so I can be entertained. Some might make some money in their careers but I bet most barely are surviving. Should that job be banned?

Wal-Mart checkers live a depressing life on minimum wage and end up on food stamps more often than not. Should we force Wal-Mart to pay more so the job doesn't have a likelihood to end in suicide?

As a society, we make all kinds of choices what we will legislate. This isn't about safety - and we all talk about precious Freedom that this country was founded on. This is about morality. My issue is that some people have different morals than I do (including Sharia law, including drug laws, including alcohol prohibition, including the prostitute.)

The government dictating morals that do not impact others is the antithesis of freedom. Banning vice activities don't work and lead to more criminalization surrounding the activity. Regulation can make the activity safer for the general population. If it leads to criminal activity with victims punish that criminal activity.

If your argument is don't do things that are against the law, then you probably don't have to participate in a discussion about what laws are just and I guess your giving a thumbs up to New York on this one.

You have this weird view of freedom that none of the founders of this country would recognize. It's morphed into autonomy and lionized as if nothing but complete self determination is virtuous, and equally so complete indifference to the suffering of others (because they chose it and all, an ironically pro-trans argument for this forum).

Morality and legality are inherently intertwined. The absolute worst aspect of libertarianism is how little it cares for human beings and how much it values their detachment from those around them. It looks more like the Hindu caste system in practice than any western virtue in theory.

AGC said:

---

You have this weird view of freedom that none of the founders of this country would recognize. It's morphed into autonomy and lionized as if nothing but complete self determination is virtuous, and equally so complete indifference to the suffering of others (because they chose it and all, an ironically pro-trans argument for this forum).

Morality and legality are inherently intertwined. The absolute worst aspect of libertarianism is how little it cares for human beings and how much it values their detachment from those around them. It looks more like the Hindu caste system in practice than any western virtue in theory.

---

So your definition of Freedom only encompasses what you believe it to encompass? As long as it hits the same morals that you have then we should force those morals on others?

I think the founding fathers talked about freedom of religion quite a bit. That may include practices that your religion doesn't care for. Just as there are many Islamic states that think it's immoral that your wife or daughter walks around town without covering her shoulders.

I believe that people should be able to make their own choices. I believe that your morality may not be the same as mine - so our government shouldn't be the ultimate owners of who gets thrown in jail for what happens in private between two consenting adults. All on board in locking up human traffickers and

If someone wants to have a career in fast food cooking, be a ditch digger or roofer - that's their business even if I would not push my kids in that direction. You are saying that a prostitute is suffering so more than those professions that the government needs to intervene.

CanyonLakeAgbu said:

---

I should have deleted my bookmark from this thread a day ago. It has......devolved.

---

I've been banned for way less.

Story my grandmother told me:

In the fall they would pickle and can their fall vegetables over several days so that in case there was a problem with their process on one particular day and the jars didn't seal they wouldn't lose everything.

My grandmother told me how much she hated it that every year after working hard and following careful procedures, one or two of their neighbors wouldn't be careful and would lose all of their cans. All the ladies in the community would get together a portion of their jars and donate them so the families wouldn't starve.

My grandmother said she had to do without because of other peoples stupid choices. Sure things have changed and social services and tax dollars mask our interconnection with others… but the point here is you can say the actions of others in our community don't affect each of us - but you'd be wrong.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

CanyonLakeAgbu said:

---

I should have deleted my bookmark from this thread a day ago. It has......devolved.

---

I've been banned for way less.

---

Yeah...

And that poster DID call my daughters hookers.

But, in the immortal words of Dalton...I chose to Be Nice.

Because they aren't.

AGC said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

AGC said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

AGC said:

---

Teslag said:

---

People can responsible use drugs. See all the high end bourbon drinkers on the outdoors board.

---

Are those the ones going to jail for drug crimes like you said? Or are you moving the goalposts?

---

Well, bourbon is not illegal...so...

---

And here's the crux of the matter. 100 years ago you'd be ok with jailing people that today you are fine with them being free. The Rebecca Creek I had tonight isn't any different than the bourbon our great grandparents would have been arrested for during prohibition yet because some Karen decided she knew better 100 years ago it was illegal. When is it ok for a person to make their own decisions in their own home? Or is it?

---

And just like society had the political decision available to outlaw alcohol and then reverse course, the people have the ability to decide whether illicit acts or substances should be banned in society. Your premise that individuals have the right to do anything they want as long as it doesn't have a direct and immediate impact on others is absurd and frankly childish. A just society has the moral authority to ban things that are identified as bad for the individual based on the understanding that the individual is a part of the society. You are not an island unto yourself, and you don't have the right to do whatever your heart desires.

You have the liberty and freedom to do what you ought to. Not what you want to.

---

That's fair and I appreciate the lack of emotion in that post. My biggest frustration with both major parties the emotional attachment to banning unwanted behavior without even a hint of acknowledgement that those bans aren't actually accomplishing anything and in fact may be making things worse. At some point don't we have to admit we can't prevent these things from happening and focus on the things we can prevent? Then we have the whole issue of unintended consequences such as human trafficking that springs up in the wake of prostitution being illegal.

I'm extremely libertarian despite the fact I live a very conservative life. I barely drink, like 2-3 drinks a month and rarely away from home. I've never been drunk and I've never used anything stronger that bourbon. So why am I libertarian? Because I don't trust you. I don't even know you so why trust you? You want to use government to tell me what I can and can't do and I'm not ok with that.

Then I get back to what actually works. Bans are like war plans. They're the first things tossed aside when the bullets start flying. I'd like to think we can come up with something that actually works to address the very real crime of trafficking women and children and frankly I don't care about prostitution as long as she's there voluntarily. I like solutions and bans are nearly 100% of the time things that change the problem but don't solve anything.

My $.02. Good discussion finally now that we've tossed aside the emotion.

---

How do you reconcile this lack of trust with the complete freedom of individual choice you allow? If you don't trust others why let them do anything they want in the privacy of their homes and assume it won't go anywhere else? That they'll only destroy themselves with those decisions?

---

When you're actions impact others we have an actual crime. There are states where suicide is illegal. That's the dumbest **** in history in a world with a massive amount of stupid **** implemented by nanny state politicians. Government's job is to protect you from me and me from you. It's not to protect you from you or me from me. That's the role of parents and I'm well beyond the age of needing those. In other words when your destructive behavior is no longer confined to your home then we have an actual problem. If you can afford your own drugs then I don't care. Steal from your neighbors or family to fund your addiction and I do.

---

How does the government protect me if my neighbor, the sole provider for his family, commits suicide? I pay taxes to support his family now. If he's an only child I'm on the hook for his parents. Or his siblings now are if he has any. What happens when his kids spiral out of control with drug addiction, promiscuity, or also commit suicide? Do people rush out to buy homes where copious amounts of drugs have been done? Or does society have to put extra effort into cleaning up the mess? The porn consumer in his own home is consuming exploitation (even stories of women who are compensated talk about drug addiction, alcoholism, and how the companies treat them - it's undeniable at this point).

There is no autonomous individual in this world created by abiogenesis. You believe in something that doesn't exist to justify your inhumanity toward others (what else can we call such callous indifference to suffering?).

---

Ho. Lee. ***** I threw out the most ridiculous law on the books anywhere in this country and you're defending that law. You're defending a law that literally cannot be prosecuted because by definition the offender cannot be tried nor convicted. At least with laws against prostitution you can prosecute the people that break that law.

This is why I don't like to engage the religious right. Right now you sound exactly like the democrats when they pound their fist and proclaim that we must ban the AR15. They know damn good and well that banning that rifle will do nothing to curtail gun violence but they scream about it because it makes their hysterical constituents feel better. "We have to do SOMETHING! Think of the children!"

Don't reply. I'm done with this thread.

dude95 said:

---

AGC said:

---

You have this weird view of freedom that none of the founders of this country would recognize. It's morphed into autonomy and lionized as if nothing but complete self determination is virtuous, and equally so complete indifference to the suffering of others (because they chose it and all, an ironically pro-trans argument for this forum).

Morality and legality are inherently intertwined. The absolute worst aspect of libertarianism is how little it cares for human beings and how much it values their detachment from those around them. It looks more like the Hindu caste system in practice than any western virtue in theory.

---

So your definition of Freedom only encompasses what you believe it to encompass? As long as it hits the same morals that you have then we should force those morals on others?

I think the founding fathers talked about freedom of religion quite a bit. That may include practices that your religion doesn't care for. Just as there are many Islamic states that think it's immoral that your wife or daughter walks around town without covering her shoulders.

I believe that people should be able to make their own choices. I believe that your morality may not be the same as mine - so our government shouldn't be the ultimate owners of who gets thrown in jail for what happens in private between two consenting adults. All on board in locking up human traffickers and

If someone wants to have a career in fast food cooking, be a ditch digger or roofer - that's their business even if I would not push my kids in that direction. You are saying that a prostitute is suffering so more than those professions that the government needs to intervene.

---

You appealed to freedom from when the country was founded. I was merely correcting your belief that they thought like you did, that it was autonomy and subject to some idea of 'consent' and 'harm' as governs your own morality. I'd also point out each state had a state church and most assumed everyone was Christian. The arguments you're making here are new inventions divorced from the reality of what you appeal to.

You have this idea that outlawing harmful behavior, even self harm, is worse than allowing it outright. Our laws punish the marginal perpetrator; we want to push the average person away from murder, theft, etc. to maintain a high trust society because those are the ones with the truly lowest cost to all citizens. We recognize people will do it but we don't want it to go unpunished because unchecked, it takes a high toll on the community.

You may be the only person that looks at Portland, OR and thinks they got it right. It's absurd argumentation.

Ag with kids said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

CanyonLakeAgbu said:

---

I should have deleted my bookmark from this thread a day ago. It has......devolved.

---

I've been banned for way less.

---

Yeah...

And that poster DID call my daughters hookers.

But, in the immortal words of Dalton...I chose to Be Nice.

Because they aren't.

---

Just calling out what you're supporting. Sorry the hypothetical makes me a meanie while y'all sit here and shill for the abuse and degradation of real women out of some false interpretation of liberty.

Maybe you should reevaluate your positions if the logical conclusions feel gross to you. Or are you just the NIMBY types that are fine with others daughters being victimized?

A real joke that I should catch a ban when y'all sit here and simp for pimps.

LOYAL AG said:

---

AGC said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

AGC said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

AGC said:

---

Teslag said:

---

People can responsible use drugs. See all the high end bourbon drinkers on the outdoors board.

---

Are those the ones going to jail for drug crimes like you said? Or are you moving the goalposts?

---

Well, bourbon is not illegal...so...

---

And here's the crux of the matter. 100 years ago you'd be ok with jailing people that today you are fine with them being free. The Rebecca Creek I had tonight isn't any different than the bourbon our great grandparents would have been arrested for during prohibition yet because some Karen decided she knew better 100 years ago it was illegal. When is it ok for a person to make their own decisions in their own home? Or is it?

---

And just like society had the political decision available to outlaw alcohol and then reverse course, the people have the ability to decide whether illicit acts or substances should be banned in society. Your premise that individuals have the right to do anything they want as long as it doesn't have a direct and immediate impact on others is absurd and frankly childish. A just society has the moral authority to ban things that are identified as bad for the individual based on the understanding that the individual is a part of the society. You are not an island unto yourself, and you don't have the right to do whatever your heart desires.

You have the liberty and freedom to do what you ought to. Not what you want to.

---

That's fair and I appreciate the lack of emotion in that post. My biggest frustration with both major parties the emotional attachment to banning unwanted behavior without even a hint of acknowledgement that those bans aren't actually accomplishing anything and in fact may be making things worse. At some point don't we have to admit we can't prevent these things from happening and focus on the things we can prevent? Then we have the whole issue of unintended consequences such as human trafficking that springs up in the wake of prostitution being illegal.

I'm extremely libertarian despite the fact I live a very conservative life. I barely drink, like 2-3 drinks a month and rarely away from home. I've never been drunk and I've never used anything stronger that bourbon. So why am I libertarian? Because I don't trust you. I don't even know you so why trust you? You want to use government to tell me what I can and can't do and I'm not ok with that.

Then I get back to what actually works. Bans are like war plans. They're the first things tossed aside when the bullets start flying. I'd like to think we can come up with something that actually works to address the very real crime of trafficking women and children and frankly I don't care about prostitution as long as she's there voluntarily. I like solutions and bans are nearly 100% of the time things that change the problem but don't solve anything.

My $.02. Good discussion finally now that we've tossed aside the emotion.

---

How do you reconcile this lack of trust with the complete freedom of individual choice you allow? If you don't trust others why let them do anything they want in the privacy of their homes and assume it won't go anywhere else? That they'll only destroy themselves with those decisions?

---

When you're actions impact others we have an actual crime. There are states where suicide is illegal. That's the dumbest **** in history in a world with a massive amount of stupid **** implemented by nanny state politicians. Government's job is to protect you from me and me from you. It's not to protect you from you or me from me. That's the role of parents and I'm well beyond the age of needing those. In other words when your destructive behavior is no longer confined to your home then we have an actual problem. If you can afford your own drugs then I don't care. Steal from your neighbors or family to fund your addiction and I do.

---

How does the government protect me if my neighbor, the sole provider for his family, commits suicide? I pay taxes to support his family now. If he's an only child I'm on the hook for his parents. Or his siblings now are if he has any. What happens when his kids spiral out of control with drug addiction, promiscuity, or also commit suicide? Do people rush out to buy homes where copious amounts of drugs have been done? Or does society have to put extra effort into cleaning up the mess? The porn consumer in his own home is consuming exploitation (even stories of women who are compensated talk about drug addiction, alcoholism, and how the companies treat them - it's undeniable at this point).

There is no autonomous individual in this world created by abiogenesis. You believe in something that doesn't exist to justify your inhumanity toward others (what else can we call such callous indifference to suffering?).

---

Ho. Lee. ***** I threw out the most ridiculous law on the books anywhere in this country and you're defending that law. You're defending a law that literally cannot be prosecuted because by definition the offender cannot be tried nor convicted. At least with laws against prostitution you can prosecute the people that break that law.

This is why I don't like to engage the religious right. Right now you sound exactly like the democrats when they pound their fist and proclaim that we must ban the AR15. They know damn good and well that banning that rifle will do nothing to curtail gun violence but they scream about it because it makes their hysterical constituents feel better. "We have to do SOMETHING! Think of the children!"

Don't reply. I'm done with this thread.

---

I didn't bother talking about euthanasia becuase you'd have to actually care about other people to see how slippery that slope has become when the state allows everything. Since you don't, I appealed to economics, because while libertarians don't have morals, they do care about how much things cost.

Sorry for all the Bible verses I threw at you!

AGC said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

AGC said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

AGC said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

LOYAL AG said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

AGC said:

---

Teslag said:

---

People can responsible use drugs. See all the high end bourbon drinkers on the outdoors board.

---

Are those the ones going to jail for drug crimes like you said? Or are you moving the goalposts?

---

Well, bourbon is not illegal...so...

---

And here's the crux of the matter. 100 years ago you'd be ok with jailing people that today you are fine with them being free. The Rebecca Creek I had tonight isn't any different than the bourbon our great grandparents would have been arrested for during prohibition yet because some Karen decided she knew better 100 years ago it was illegal. When is it ok for a person to make their own decisions in their own home? Or is it?

---

And just like society had the political decision available to outlaw alcohol and then reverse course, the people have the ability to decide whether illicit acts or substances should be banned in society. Your premise that individuals have the right to do anything they want as long as it doesn't have a direct and immediate impact on others is absurd and frankly childish. A just society has the moral authority to ban things that are identified as bad for the individual based on the understanding that the individual is a part of the society. You are not an island unto yourself, and you don't have the right to do whatever your heart desires.

You have the liberty and freedom to do what you ought to. Not what you want to.

---

That's fair and I appreciate the lack of emotion in that post. My biggest frustration with both major parties the emotional attachment to banning unwanted behavior without even a hint of acknowledgement that those bans aren't actually accomplishing anything and in fact may be making things worse. At some point don't we have to admit we can't prevent these things from happening and focus on the things we can prevent? Then we have the whole issue of unintended consequences such as human trafficking that springs up in the wake of prostitution being illegal.

I'm extremely libertarian despite the fact I live a very conservative life. I barely drink, like 2-3 drinks a month and rarely away from home. I've never been drunk and I've never used anything stronger that bourbon. So why am I libertarian? Because I don't trust you. I don't even know you so why trust you? You want to use government to tell me what I can and can't do and I'm not ok with that.

Then I get back to what actually works. Bans are like war plans. They're the first things tossed aside when the bullets start flying. I'd like to think we can come up with something that actually works to address the very real crime of trafficking women and children and frankly I don't care about prostitution as long as she's there voluntarily. I like solutions and bans are nearly 100% of the time things that change the problem but don't solve anything.

My $.02. Good discussion finally now that we've tossed aside the emotion.

---

How do you reconcile this lack of trust with the complete freedom of individual choice you allow? If you don't trust others why let them do anything they want in the privacy of their homes and assume it won't go anywhere else? That they'll only destroy themselves with those decisions?

---

When you're actions impact others we have an actual crime. There are states where suicide is illegal. That's the dumbest **** in history in a world with a massive amount of stupid **** implemented by nanny state politicians. Government's job is to protect you from me and me from you. It's not to protect you from you or me from me. That's the role of parents and I'm well beyond the age of needing those. In other words when your destructive behavior is no longer confined to your home then we have an actual problem. If you can afford your own drugs then I don't care. Steal from your neighbors or family to fund your addiction and I do.

---

How does the government protect me if my neighbor, the sole provider for his family, commits suicide? I pay taxes to support his family now. If he's an only child I'm on the hook for his parents. Or his siblings now are if he has any. What happens when his kids spiral out of control with drug addiction, promiscuity, or also commit suicide? Do people rush out to buy homes where copious amounts of drugs have been done? Or does society have to put extra effort into cleaning up the mess? The porn consumer in his own home is consuming exploitation (even stories of women who are compensated talk about drug addiction, alcoholism, and how the companies treat them - it's undeniable at this point).

There is no autonomous individual in this world created by abiogenesis. You believe in something that doesn't exist to justify your inhumanity toward others (what else can we call such callous indifference to suffering?).

---

Ho. Lee. ***** I threw out the most ridiculous law on the books anywhere in this country and you're defending that law. You're defending a law that literally cannot be prosecuted because by definition the offender cannot be tried nor convicted. At least with laws against prostitution you can prosecute the people that break that law.

This is why I don't like to engage the religious right. Right now you sound exactly like the democrats when they pound their fist and proclaim that we must ban the AR15. They know damn good and well that banning that rifle will do nothing to curtail gun violence but they scream about it because it makes their hysterical constituents feel better. "We have to do SOMETHING! Think of the children!"

Don't reply. I'm done with this thread.

---

I didn't bother talking about euthanasia becuase you'd have to actually care about other people to see how slippery that slope has become when the state allows everything. Since you don't, I appealed to economics, because while libertarians don't have morals, they do care about how much things cost.

Sorry for all the Bible verses I threw at you!

---

It's funny that the gun reference has been thrown out here. The only reason we can't pass gun bans is because of the Constitution. In the absence of the second amendment, the government would have every right to pass broad bans on firearms. There is no such protection for prostitution.

Also, as a practical matter, banning guns does a great job at reducing gun violence. It does not cure society of all homicide, but it absolutely achieves it's stated purpose of reducing gun violence. Same as bans on prostitution reducing prostitution.

Obviously banning guns is a completely different moral question than prostitution since it delves into questions of tyranny, self defense, etc. Its just funny that he rails against bans not working and then chooses an apples to oranges comparison that still disproves his point.

RoadkillBBQ said:

---

Prostitution should be legal.

---

Yep. Gambling as well. Put Brewster county on the map. Fill it up with Casinos and brothels.

Tax it. Get women off the street and make them full time employees with healthcare, weekly check ups, 401k's etc.