Consensual Crimes

[soggypicklemuncher]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

It speaks volumes about a society in where those who uphold the law cannot even say them themselves did not break the same laws before becoming a law enforcement officer and about the level of draconian laws in place.

This makes me think of A Clockwork Orange, the part where Alex runs into two of his former gang buddies who have gone into law enforcement.

[CLV]

Drake talks a lot of sense.
Just thought I'd put my tuppeneth in.
As you were.

[Delicate_Torture]

Originally Posted by Bloopie

sir, tell me what the bill of right says? tell me the first amendment. i am curious as to what it says.

because alcohol leads to many deaths, and hurts us far more than marijuana, yet we still have it. As someone pointed out, the religious right create our laws which coincide with their morals. there is never a victim in a consensual crime. just because someone suffers does not mean we should be protected from it. sometimes we benefit, but life is full of risks, and it's up to an individual to decide which risks are worth taking.

personal liberty.

I'm going to guess that you may be referring to me, even though you started off your reply with 'sir'... and the last time I checked I had a vagina. If I'm mistaken in this (the reference to my post, not the vagina... I assure you that I am certainly not mistaken in that) then please accept my apology.

As for what the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment says? I don't know, and I don't particularly care to know because there are more people who live outside of the United States than who live in it... myself being one of those people. It also has nothing to do with what I stated.

You say that there is never a victim in a consensual crime, and you also state prostitution as an example of one of those crimes. Have you ever taken time to get to know a sex worker? Believe me, they suffer as a victim of their chosen 'profession', even those who are still young and stupid enough to think that what they are doing is glamorous will eventually come to realise that they have had part of themselves taken away.

I saw an extremely interesting documentary called "Love For Sale" about Miss Kitty's Brothel in Nebraska, USA. There was a part of it where someone was talking to one of the workers there and she was saying that everytime you sleep with a client he takes a little bit of your soul away with him and that she had to leave the job for a while because she had no more left to give.

I found that a deeply insightful and interesting point, especially when one views it in reference to the idea of a 'victimless crime'.

[CLV]

Why didn't she just quit altogether then.
We have choices in life, sometimes our choices are limited, but no-one has to go into prostitution.

I have to say i felt the same way about working in an office, every day a little bit of my soul died.

Originally Posted by Delicate_Torture

I'm going to guess that you may be referring to me, even though you started off your reply with 'sir'... and the last time I checked I had a vagina. If I'm mistaken in this (the reference to my post, not the vagina... I assure you that I am certainly not mistaken in that) then please accept my apology.

As for what the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment says? I don't know, and I don't particularly care to know because there are more people who live outside of the United States than who live in it... myself being one of those people. It also has nothing to do with what I stated.

the united nations has drafted up something similar to that. almost all European nations have a quasi-first-amendment.

You say that there is never a victim in a consensual crime, and you also state prostitution as an example of one of those crimes. Have you ever taken time to get to know a sex worker? Believe me, they suffer as a victim of their chosen 'profession', even those who are still young and stupid enough to think that what they are doing is glamorous will eventually come to realise that they have had part of themselves taken away.

so what if they come to realize it? they chose the path. they only hurt themselves. why should they go to jail for it? can you give me a good reason?

I saw an extremely interesting documentary called "Love For Sale" about Miss Kitty's Brothel in Nebraska, USA. There was a part of it where someone was talking to one of the workers there and she was saying that everytime you sleep with a client he takes a little bit of your soul away with him and that she had to leave the job for a while because she had no more left to give.

then maybe she shouldn't have chosen the profession? why should the government protect you from yourself? you should choose your poison, or your pleasure. obviously she still wanted to do it, and didn't mind "losing her soul," because if she did, she would have quit a long time ago. so what's the problem here? i see no problem.

I found that a deeply insightful and interesting point, especially when one views it in reference to the idea of a 'victimless crime'.

there is no victim in a victimless crime. and i am using the term consensual crime, not victimless. what about people who get deeply upset when someone leaves them? should they go to jail for it? if they said it with the same inflection, and the same adjectives, would it be equally as horrible? of course not. that's stupid. so why is this any different?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Kraven de Sade

What constitutes a ban with you? If drugs, sex, and gambling were banned in the US, they wouldn't be allowed, period. Yet there are extremely lenient drug laws (for some drugs) in several states, legal prostitution in Vegas, and state-run lotteries in every state of the Union. Hardly a ban.

Lenient drug laws? They are few and far between in the states, and vary depending on your location. Also, no where in the states are drug legal. Even in California where the voter for medical marijuana the DEA has repeatedly raided the establishments and arrested grandmothers with terminal illnesses to prove their point.

Bloopie pointed out Holland. Holland hardly constitutes half of Europe.

Try Germany, Poland, Slovakia, and a few others off the top of me head I can't think of. It's not just Holland - prostitution is widespread and legalised in many societies here.

I don't get that at all. Letting those things be legal opens them up to being taxable, and income through taxes from those thing would outweigh how much they spend to make them illegal, as well as elliminating the need to get their funds from other taxes.

See, your asking the wrong question. It's not the 'how much' money can they make its 'who makes' that money. More taxes mean more money for the government that is without a doubt a true statement. However, this takes away from the largest industries in America with the most lobbying power who fight to keep the current status quo and their large government contracts.

Much like the current quagmire in Iraq. It's not about how much profit the country can make, its about how much those who have positioned themselves in various industries can make.

[killer_asian_Dax]

It all has to do with money and the people in power try to use their "christian morals" as vehicles for their campaigns.

It's advantages for the gov't to make laws banning certain things and concessions for other things they CAN control. If they can't make money off it from controlling it- then they can it and make money off the infraction.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Delicate_Torture

People need their ethical values protected in the same way that they need their physical bodies protected from danger.

That made my stomach turn. Nothing could be less ethical than using police force, which is effective only because of its capacity for violence, to protect someone's arbitrary notions of what kind of ettiquette is pretty.

Drake

[Drake Dun]

Regarding the whole idea that prostitution is not a victimless crime, because it is rough on the prostitute, I have a couple of comments.

First, I want to reiterate something I said before - it is probably dangerous and nasty mostly because it is illegal.

My next point is in paralell to that one. The burden of emotional or spiritual pain that goes with prostitution (for some) is, in all likelihood, primarily the product of puritanical social mores. Get rid of the laws, get rid of the anal-retentive opprobrium, and the problem will largely go away.

It was the same thing with homosexuality. Some of the most popular arguments for keeping it illegal and continuing to consider it a mental disease were that the homosexual would be subjected to persecution by society, so he needed to change, in order to avoid that.

That's how the mindset works... we dream up reasons to hate people for what they are or what they do, and then we justify them on the basis that if those people don't change, they will be hated. It's the worst kind of self-satisfied, obdurate conformism.

Although again... all these considerations are secondary in my book. The call of freedom is that if it ain't straight up "immoral" in and of itself, we leave it be.

Drake

[Drake Dun]

Incidentally, why are we talking about the First Amendment? It has nothing to do with this issue.

Drake

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

I've found this discussion educational and interesting... Except for Sternn's attempt to turn it into an "anti-Right Wing America" debate. For fuck's sake, Sternn, as far as I can tell this subject has nothing to do with President Bush. It doesn't even specifically pertain to the US. It's about how far a government (any government) should go in what it can and cannot legislate, and about how much moral compass a government can dictate to its people.

We get that you hate America. You'd have to be deaf, blind, and mute not to have figured that out. But sometimes it's ok to make a post that has nothing to do with your hatred of America. For instance, we know that you think your government is superior to ours. Now, let's ignore that and simply discuss the concept of a perfect government's role in our lives. The perfect government would have a stance on consensual crimes. What would it be?

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by DarkHeartedDemoness

The perfect government would have a stance on consensual crimes.

I demur to that. The perfect government would have, as its sole characteristic, non-existence.

Drake

[DarkHeartedDemoness]

That's a very interesting statement to make. However, I'm not quite sure how to respond to it, as I'm not sure what your support for that statement is. Care to elaborate?

[Drake Dun]

Let me get back to you on that when I am not drunk.

Drake

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

First, I want to reiterate something I said before - it is probably dangerous and nasty mostly because it is illegal.

This happened to the British gay population during the 1800's:
England passed a law against homosexuality, but of course, that did not stop it, and as a result, blackmailers made an obscene living setting up gay men with lovers who would then threaten to expose them to the law if not paid huge sums.

The law that was passed ended up creating more crime and suffering.

[Delicate_Torture]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

That made my stomach turn. Nothing could be less ethical than using police force, which is effective only because of its capacity for violence, to protect someone's arbitrary notions of what kind of ettiquette is pretty.

Drake

Firstly, I don't know where you are from, and yes.. there are places in the world where your statement is true, but in Australia the police force isn't reliant on their capacity for violence for efficacy. They do a lot of good work in a lot of good ways.

Secondly, ethics and morals have little to do with an arbitrary notion of pretty ettiquette.

And finally, I'm sadly going to have to sit this arguement out because it is making me frustrated and feel anxious... and I'd prefer to keep on an emotionally even keel. There is no particular reason that this discussion has done that more so than any other, it's just that some things really get to me in a mentally unhealthy way at times. This seems to be one of those times.

Drake, I don't mean this as a cut-and-run tactic. I would've been interested in speaking more about this to you. I found your idea about a non-existant government insightful in a surreal-zen-buddhist sort of way. I might be able to pop back to this thread in a couple of days.

Originally Posted by HumanePain

This happened to the British gay population during the 1800's:
England passed a law against homosexuality, but of course, that did not stop it, and as a result, blackmailers made an obscene living setting up gay men with lovers who would then threaten to expose them to the law if not paid huge sums.

The law that was passed ended up creating more crime and suffering.

sounds like the prohibition to me. what do you think?

[MollyMac]

Prohibition made a decision illegal, and homosexuality is not a decision.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

Hmmm. I think in my opinion that prositution being illegal has its benefits. That way there are less people spreading STDs and getting HIV/AIDS. It can be a good thing.

But then again, people are entitled to use their bodies however they want.

Originally Posted by MollyMac

Prohibition made a decision illegal, and homosexuality is not a decision.

you missed the point entirely. when things become illegal, it creates more crime.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by MollyMac

Prohibition made a decision illegal, and homosexuality is not a decision.

It's funny how much of a mantra this has become, in spite of the lack of scientific evidence to back it up (at least, I am not aware of any). It has more to do with politics than fact, I think, but it has always struck me as completely the wrong tack to take. Laws against homosexual sex are pernicious not because they target people who can't help themselves, but because they target people who aren't harming anybody.

We wouldn't let a person born with deep homicidal inclinations kill people just because for him, it's "not a decision". Anyway, homosexuality may not be a decision, but any kind of sex, including homosexual sex, is. So it is not obvious to me why a case couldn't be made for its regulation, in principle, if we could turn up a victim somehow. The thing is that there is no victim.

Drake

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Delicate_Torture

And finally, I'm sadly going to have to sit this arguement out because it is making me frustrated and feel anxious... Drake, I don't mean this as a cut-and-run tactic.

I will read that as a request that I not respond to the points you made in that post. It is a cut-and-run, because you continue to discuss the issue even while bowing out of the conversation, but oh well. Worse things have happened.

Getting back to Dark Hearted Demoness about government, now. I am not sure a comprehensive essay on what government is and isn't and why it is good or bad is what's called for right now, so I'll stick to a relatively general audience introduction to some of the key issues.

This much everybody agrees upon: Government is defined by its relative monopoly upon violent force. No police, no soldiers equals no government. A law is no more than a written opinion without clubs and guns to back it up. Government is basically just a bully that is so terrifying that people don't even try to stand up to it, so it doesn't usually have to actually smack them around.

To this, many would add that not only is government offensive in principle, but what it really is there to do is preserve odious hierarchies and sick, coercive relationships between people. Hopefully it's obvious why a person might have an objection to it.

The ordinary excuse for the perpetuation of this monstrous institution is summed up in the words "necessary evil". The cases for and against that position are a gigantic topic unto itself, but I'll give you a summarized version of a few of the points a person like myself would make when discussing it.

1) As a matter of simple historical fact, government was not invented to protect people, but to enforce the will of mass-murdering empire builders.

2) Government today still bears all the marks of that legacy. Its first interest is always the protection not of people, but of power.

3) Government's fear-mongering sales pitch that you need it around, or all the bad evil men lurking in the shadows will get you, is laughable. Historically, for every murder "prevented" within the borders of a state by its government, countless people oustide its borders are targetted and killed by its trained force of professional murderers (soldiers).

4) The evils that government supposedly exists to fight are mostly the result of government themselves (that's turning into a motif in this thread...).

5) Supposing even that the "necessary evil" view of government has merit, what we have is not a categorical justification for government, but a reason to move cautiously and slowly when dismantling it, or to aim for as minimal a government as possible.

... and so on. If you look at the stuff I write about things, including about this, mostly what you will see is a lot of high-falutin' mouth flapping and no action. I'm a fucking armchair anarchist. If you want to read real works of anarchist thought, exploding with passion, I recommend Crimeth, Inc. as a start. Their library can be found here:

http://www.crimethinc.com/library/index.html

These people appear to be the real deal. Their belief in truth, freedom, and love isn't just expressed in pretty words on Internet message forums. It's played out on the streets. They're the people I hope to form ties with, and perhaps join next time I visit the States.

Drake

[Drake Dun]

I highly recommend Harbinger 5 for anybody who's American, by the way. The theme is very current America.

Drake

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by DarkHeartedDemoness

INow, let's ignore that and simply discuss the concept of a perfect government's role in our lives. The perfect government would have a stance on consensual crimes. What would it be?

The perfect government would not take a criminal stance on consensual crimes. Gambling, drug use, prostitution, sodomy, alcohol sales (i.e. blue laws), homosexuality, and all the other acts which have been deemed 'illegal' in the states, or other countries, have been done so to appease religious groups who push the agenda for their own self-righteous purpose and hide under the guise of doing it on behalf of health and safety reasons.

To allow a government to enact legislation that makes such acts illegal when in reality, many wouldn't even be considered immoral depending on your beliefs or the beliefs of your chosen religion, shows how much influence that certain groups have within any said government.

But as I said before, religious groups always try and link their beliefs/actions to health and safety, as we see in the arguements against various acts, where as government who choose to pick up these poor argument and turn them into policy do so only because of money - or support from a particular group. Never will you see policy put in place that bans such acts that actually does so to protect anyone, as in reality, you cannot protect a person from themselves.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

The perfect government would not take a criminal stance on consensual crimes. Gambling, drug use, prostitution, sodomy, alcohol sales (i.e. blue laws), homosexuality, and all the other acts which have been deemed 'illegal' in the states, or other countries, have been done so to appease religious groups who push the agenda for their own self-righteous purpose and hide under the guise of doing it on behalf of health and safety reasons.

Whoops. I think someone just tripped over themselves again trying to walk on the high road. CptSternn here claims to this day to be working at a Hezbollah political office in Europe to help raise money for their activities in Lebanon.

For reference, Hezbollah is a sectarian, Islamic group based out of Lebanon who does not recognize homosexuality, the consumption of alcohol, sodomy, prostitution, drug use, gambling, or anything else he has mentioned.