"If Ron Paul was a local legislator, he'd vote to ban prostitution"

[0zzy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_s5HOwoWJE

"Ron Paul doesn't find Mr. Hof's [something] very appealing, now if he was a local legislator, he'd vote to ban prostitution."

So says a spokesman.

1) Think he would? I though Ron Paul advocated people can do what they want with their own body. I'm thinking he's just saying that so he can get the Christian vote and all. On Joe he said "I endorse freedom, I don't endorse what people do with that freedom." So I think it's just tough talk.
2) Think Mr. Hof might get offended? (Who cares, right? Just wondering though)
3) Would he do this to the other groups (racist and all) if the media was all up on it?

[Mark Rushmore]

1) yes
2) maybe
3) not clear what "this" is? Explain that taking a principled stand in defense of federalism and our constitution is different than promoting prostitution?

[DjLoTi]

Ron Paul talks about prostitution in the Google video. Says prostitution has been going on longer then government has.

[Ron LOL]

[something] = "lifestyle"

[njandrewg]

Well its a good thing he is running for a federal office then.

And prostitution is not really protected by the constitution, so states can do what they please

[0zzy]

[something] = "lifestyle"

I meant, think his campaign would play down the endorsements like this to other groups?

[Mark Rushmore]

I meant, think his campaign would play down the endorsements like this to other groups?

I imagine if some Abortion Doctors of America group threw him an endorsement for his opposition to Roe v Wade, he might be tempted to once again clarify that his personal preferences and beliefs are distinct from his civic duty as a federal official.

[Perry]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_s5HOwoWJE

"Ron Paul doesn't find Mr. Hof's [something] very appealing, now if he was a local legislator, he'd vote to ban prostitution."

So says a spokesman.

1) Think he would? I though Ron Paul advocated people can do what they want with their own body. I'm thinking he's just saying that so he can get the Christian vote and all. On Joe he said "I endorse freedom, I don't endorse what people do with that freedom." So I think it's just tough talk.
2) Think Mr. Hof might get offended? (Who cares, right? Just wondering though)
3) Would he do this to the other groups (racist and all) if the media was all up on it?

Perhaps you should study Dr. Paul a little closer.

[tremendoustie]

In my view (and I believe he would agree), prostitution is morally abhorrent, but it's the government's job to dictate what you can and cannot do, as long as you are not assaulting the person/property/freedom of others. As I believe he said on the program this morning, regarding the very issue, "I endorse freedom, not necessarily what people do with their freedom".

[Ron LOL]

RP is a very traditional man...who stays married for 50 years anymore? I have no difficulty believing that he would vote that way at the local level.

Ron Paul's position isn't as "live and let live" as it might seem -- he's just against unconstitutional meddling at the federal level.

[Mark Rushmore]

In my view (and I believe he would agree), prostitution is morally abhorrent, but it's the government's job to dictate what you can and cannot do, as long as you are not assaulting the person/property/freedom of others. As I believe he said on the program this morning, regarding the very issue, "I endorse freedom, not necessarily what people do with their freedom".

Interestingly, I cannot find a single flaw with prostitution in theory (most of the flaws arising in practice, eg. abuse, are a direct result of its illegality). At the same time, if certain towns or counties voted clearly in favor of banning it, I couldn't complain.

I think we are some sort of bizarre contorted mirror image.

[0zzy]

Perhaps you should study Dr. Paul a little closer.

Why? :X His personal views (governments shouldn't intervene, especially the federal government) contradict what the campaign spokesperson said.

[JustBcuz]

This is an any 'consensual agreements' sort of thing.

Abortion is different, Dr. Paul considers abortion an act of violence against an individual. BUT, acts of violence (assault, murder, theft, etc.) are handled on the State & Local level, NOT the Federal.

Staffer may have gotten 'confused.'

[Taco John]

I absolutely think Ron Paul would vote to ban prostitution on a local level. Libertarianism isn't about anarchy. It's about the principle of subsidiarity... localized government as opposed to federalized government.

[Perry]

Why? :X His personal views (governments shouldn't intervene, especially the federal government) contradict what the campaign spokesperson said.

It is entirely possible that he doesn't want to live in a town with a brothel.
It is entirely possible he would vote for local legislation against such a business.
Because he advocates freedom does not mean he is black & white on all issues and all levels. Remember that Ron Paul is a very conservative Christian.

[tremendoustie]

RP is a very traditional man...who stays married for 50 years anymore? I have no difficulty believing that he would vote that way at the local level.

Ron Paul's position isn't as "live and let live" as it might seem -- he's just against unconstitutional meddling at the federal level.

Just getting the federal government under control would be a huge victory in my opinion. No matter what states do, at least people would be able to chose to live in a state whose laws appealed to them, and we would be able to observe the success/failure of different kinds of government, and choose the best. Perhaps Vermont would go completely socialist, and NH would be free. It would be interesting to see how each played out, and where people chose to live. Instead of playing this massive nationwide tug of war, everyone could get something a lot closer to what they want. And, if a model proves to be disasterous, we won't have to drag the whole country down with it just to find out.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Ron Paul votes in Congress to let the states and localities decide, would vote to keep it legal (although not necessarily unregulated) if he was a state or local legislator, and would strongly oppose it on a personal level because of his Christian faith. That's what makes America so great.

[0zzy]

I absolutely think Ron Paul would vote to ban prostitution on a local level. Libertarianism isn't about anarchy. It's about the principle of subsidiarity... localized government as opposed to federalized government.

That's called small-government conservatism.
Libertarians would vote against such a ban, because it is against personal freedom (of body and what not).

Allowing prostitution to be legal isn't "anarchy".


It is entirely possible that he doesn't want to live in a town with a brothel.
It is entirely possible he would vote for local legislation against such a business.
Because he advocates freedom does not mean he is black & white on all issues and all levels. Remember that Ron Paul is a very conservative Christian.

Indeed, indeed. I can see it both ways, though his Christian faith would probably overrule his libertarian-leaning vote.

[bbachtung]

If Ron Paul were running for city council, then the title of this thread would be relevant.

[tremendoustie]

Interestingly, I cannot find a single flaw with prostitution in theory (most of the flaws arising in practice, eg. abuse, are a direct result of its illegality). At the same time, if certain towns or counties voted clearly in favor of banning it, I couldn't complain.

I think we are some sort of bizarre contorted mirror image.

Aha! I have met my anti-person. We'd better not get to close or we may cancel out and disappear. Physics joke. Anyone? Anyone at all? *hangs head in shame at own geekiness.

[tremendoustie]

That's called small-government conservatism.
Libertarians would vote against such a ban, because it is against personal freedom (of body and what not).

Allowing prostitution to be legal isn't "anarchy".



Indeed, indeed. I can see it both ways, though his Christian faith would probably overrule his libertarian-leaning vote.

Just a small point, being a Christian would indicate you believe prostitution is immoral/damaging, not that you necessarily believe it should be illegal. There's no conflict. At least I hope not since I'm a Christian and hold those views ...

[pdavis]

I absolutely think Ron Paul would vote to ban prostitution on a local level. Libertarianism isn't about anarchy. It's about the principle of subsidiarity... localized government as opposed to federalized government.

I don't think he would. This issue was brought up in the Google interview. You are completely wrong about libertarianism. What you are talking about is constitutional federalism/ republicanism. Libertarianism is a political philosophy that is based on private property, individual liberty, and the non aggression axiom (the initiation of or the threat of force is illegitimate, unless in self defense).

[1000-points-of-fright]

Physics joke. Anyone? Anyone at all? *hangs head in shame at own geekiness.

Sorry, what? I was distracted. I've got a cat in this box and.... oh crap.

[tremendoustie]

Sorry, what? I was distracted. I've got a cat in this box and.... oh crap.

Lol, you just made my day. :D

[Hook]

Well, I wouldn't waste time worrying about it since he isn't running for a state or local office.

[Ron Paul Fan]

1) Ask Ron Paul
2) Ask Mr. Hof
3) Ask Ron Paul

[stefans]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_s5HOwoWJE

1) Think he would? I though Ron Paul advocated people can do what they want with their own body.



there is nothing wrong with banning prostitution on a local level.
that's even the case in europe where prostitution is legal in most countries.
it's not about dictating what you do with your body but if you want to have prostitution on the streets of your small town.
you still won't get jailed if you do it privately.

what I found astounding in that video is the part with the prostitute. that's proof that this is a set up.
I guess we have to expect that kind of stuff(probably also about drugs in the future), but it's strange that it came from tucker...
"journalism" I guess.

[DRV45N05]

I strongly suspect that this campaign spokesman was highly misinformed.

Still, stefans is right.

[james1906]

RP falls somewhere on the spectrum between libertarianism and traditional conservatism. At the federal level, the differences are less magnified between the two. That's why RP can get such broad support from people as diverse as Pat Buchanan and a brothel owner.

[OptionsTrader]

Aha! I have met my anti-person. We'd better not get to close or we may cancel out and disappear. Physics joke. Anyone? Anyone at all? *hangs head in shame at own geekiness.

Letting me let my greater geekiness show...

If an anti-particle and a particle interract, they annihilate, not cancel and disappear, and the result is conversion of mass to pure energy. Mass nor energy can be created nor destroyed (cancelled and disappear).

[DJ RP]

I would be disapointed if ron paul through prostitution should be illega. Even at a local level. That is clearly an infringement on personal freedoms. How can a group of people by committee decide what you can do with your own body? If they can't do that then why should they be able to put drugs into their body? Why should they be able to drink alcohol? Why should they be able to eat fatty foods... SLIPPERY SLOPE.

[stefans]

I would be disapointed if ron paul through prostitution should be illega. Even at a local level. That is clearly an infringement on personal freedoms. How can a group of people by committee decide what you can do with your own body? If they can't do that then why should they be able to put drugs into their body? Why should they be able to drink alcohol? Why should they be able to eat fatty foods... SLIPPERY SLOPE.

you can do whatever you want with your body but not in front of my house.
no, not even waiting for customers.

[steph3n]

I think that he understands the federal issues are not state/local issues.
Same thing with drugs, just ending the federal war on drugs DOES NOT legalize drugs.

[DealzOnWheelz]

Ron Paul is running for President which does not give him the power to rule on that.

If he were running for a position that did give him power to rule on that he would probably vote to make it illegal.

[DJ RP]

you can do whatever you want with your body but not in front of my house.
no, not even waiting for customers.

Why would they do it in front of your house. If it's not illegal then discreet businesses will crop up. Street prostitution is only a problem when you make it illegal, in general.

[steph3n]

Why would they do it in front of your house. If it's not illegal then discreet businesses will crop up. Street prostitution is only a problem when you make it illegal, in general.

it isn't legal and isn't a problem in my town. thanks :D

[Corydoras]

I keep reading that there was once a Saturday Night Live skit, "What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub?"
This conversation reminds me of that.

[Drknows]

Its really simple you elect limited government republicans Like Ron Paul on the federal level and hippy democrats like mike gravel at the state level.

[austin356]

Its really simple you elect limited government republicans Like Ron Paul on the federal level and hippy democrats like mike gravel at the state level.



aint no hippy democrats gonna be 'lected here

Oh well, I (as a ultra pure libertarian) dont really have that much of a dislike social conservatism on the local level. I gots bigga battles to fight than hookers gettin' fined. We have a NWO knockin' on our doo step.

[stefans]

Why would they do it in front of your house. If it's not illegal then discreet businesses will crop up. Street prostitution is only a problem when you make it illegal, in general.

that's just incorrect. there is street prostituion in europe.
in cities which also have "discreet businesses".

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No, he would not ban it. Why? Because he knows how the free market works. He would legalize it. He would legalize everything BUT abortion. The man believes that LIFE is what a fetus is, so why would he want to advocate the murder of a living human? That would just be immoral. As far as statism is concerned, murder will occur if its illegal or not, but that is not the point. Government is supposed to protect life, so it should be illegal, that's the whole logic behind being against abortion. If you believe a fetus is human, then why would you advocate its murder when you believe that government exists to protect life? That would just be stupid.

[axiomata]

No, he would not ban it. Why? Because he knows how the free market works. He would legalize it. He would legalize everything BUT abortion. T

And you know RP's mind better than a campaign staffer how?

In my (humble) opinion, RP would think prostitution as immoral, just like abortion.

As a citizen voter I think he would vote to ban it in his city. If he were a local official, I think he would ban it in his city. If he were a state legislator, he may leave it up to the cities to rule on but I also think there is a chance he may vote to ban it statewide.

Nationally, he would not ban it and of course leave it up to the states. Not sure why so many people are acting surprised on this one.

[devil21]

When was the last time you heard of someone walking out of a legal and regulated brothel with a communicable disease or unwanted pregnancy? It doesn't happen because the "vice" is allowed, with certain restrictions and safeguards. It's not all that different than the alcohol and tobacco industry. If Dr. Paul truly would vote for a local ban on prostitution then I would question his entire platform. A *staffer* (some dude answering phones and emails at HQ?) said this, not Dr. Paul. Even his interview on Morning Joe made me think that he wouldn't vote to ban it on a local level.

BTW: Ron Paul isn't running for local office. He is running for President of the United States! What does this local stuff have to do with his current campaign? NOTHING!

[DJ RP]

In my (humble) opinion, RP would think prostitution as immoral, just like abortion.

But Ron Paul doesn't believe you can legislate morality. The fact is in a nice neighbourhood girls probably aren't going to want to be prostitutes. But like I said earlier, if it's true that ron paul would ban prostiution by force at a local level given the chance, that is a disapointment. But I don't think he would. I think RP is proper libertarian by heart.

[devil21]

The whole "immoral" discussion gets into religious territory which many of us aren't part of. "The freedom message brings us together, it doesn't divide us." <-----you can quote Ron Paul :)

[Johncjackson]

I absolutely think Ron Paul would vote to ban prostitution on a local level. Libertarianism isn't about anarchy. It's about the principle of subsidiarity... localized government as opposed to federalized government.

I think you are describing "constitutionalism/federalism" more than libertarianism. Allowing consensual economic and sex acts is NOT "anarchy." Libertarianism has some moral/ethical guidelines that don't differentiate between local and federal government, IMHO. There are certain things that should not be banned by The State on any level. Anarchy goes a lot further than that in every way.

[Menthol Patch]

This is a non-issue since Ron Paul is not running for local office.

Lets move on please.

[johngr]

Ron Paul talks about prostitution in the Google video. Says prostitution has been going on longer then government has.

What's the difference?

[Nefertiti]

When was the last time you heard of someone walking out of a legal and regulated brothel with a communicable disease or unwanted pregnancy? It doesn't happen because the "vice" is allowed, with certain restrictions and safeguards.

That has no foundation in fact. First of all, condoms are not 100% effective nor do they protect against all sexually transmitted diseases. Second of all, a prostitute is not tested between every customer to make sure she didn't pick up something from the last customer before she sleeps with the next one (HIV takes several weeks to be detectable in the blood and I am sure there are other diseases where it is the same). The man is not being tested for all the diseases he may pass on to the prostitute before he sleeps with her to make sure HE is disease-free for her protection. There is no requirement after he sleeps with the prostitute that he go home and tell his wife what he has done so that she can make an informed decision to protect herself. We can even take religion out of this entirely, on medical grounds alone there is no such thing as safe prostitution. Prostitution can kill-the prostitute, her johns, and the johns' spouses who are left in the dark.

And everyone here seems to want to ignore the fact that much of the prostitution that goes on in this country today is sex slavery. That IS unconstitutional. If you really are such big supporters of the constitution you would be at least as vocal about putting a stop to sex slavery as you are advocating for the legalization of prostitution, which is not something guaranteed by the constitution.

[johngr]

That has no foundation in fact. First of all, condoms are not 100% effective nor do they protect against all sexually transmitted diseases. Second of all, a prostitute is not tested between every customer to make sure she didn't pick up something from the last customer before she sleeps with the next one (HIV takes several weeks to be detectable in the blood and I am sure there are other diseases where it is the same). The man is not being tested for all the diseases he may pass on to the prostitute before he sleeps with her to make sure HE is disease-free for her protection. There is no requirement after he sleeps with the prostitute that he go home and tell his wife what he has done so that she can make an informed decision to protect herself. We can even take religion out of this entirely, on medical grounds alone there is no such thing as safe prostitution. Prostitution can kill-the prostitute, her johns, and the johns' spouses who are left in the dark.

And everyone here seems to want to ignore the fact that much of the prostitution that goes on in this country today is sex slavery. That IS unconstitutional. If you really are such big supporters of the constitution you would be at least as vocal about putting a stop to sex slavery as you are advocating for the legalization of prostitution, which is not something guaranteed by the constitution.

Do you have any studies that show that non-drug using prostitutes infect customers with AIDS or are infected by them? Is this a realistic epidemiological concern, based on any real data on the subject?

[Richandler]

All the "bad" prostitution in this country happens where it is illegal. In states like Nevada where it is legal outside of Las Vegas, it seems to be a very lucrative and well mannered business. It's a state issue just like abortion. The real reason it is illegal anywhere is because a. it's hard to tax and b. feminists like to control other women not just men.

[user]

I absolutely think Ron Paul would vote to ban prostitution on a local level. Libertarianism isn't about anarchy. It's about the principle of subsidiarity... localized government as opposed to federalized government.

What? Libertarianism is about individual liberty.

Edit: Sorry for the bump, I followed a link here.

[libertarian4321]

1) yes
2) maybe
3) not clear what "this" is? Explain that taking a principled stand in defense of federalism and our constitution is different than promoting prostitution?

I'm sure Ron doesn't agree with prostitution anymore than he agrees with drug use, BUT, I imagine he'd allow adult citizens of a free nation to make that choice for themselves.

[Revolution9]

Just a small point, being a Christian would indicate you believe prostitution is immoral/damaging, not that you necessarily believe it should be illegal. There's no conflict. At least I hope not since I'm a Christian and hold those views ...

Besides. If you want to be Christlike you need some hookers and assorted lowlifes to hang about with and enlighten.

Best
Randy

[Mastiff]

I absolutely think Ron Paul would vote to ban prostitution on a local level. Libertarianism isn't about anarchy. It's about the principle of subsidiarity... localized government as opposed to federalized government.

Exactly; local control, not no control. This is my position, and if it's RP's position I like him that much more. Since he's running for pres, it's moot though.

[TruckinMike]

Learn to differentiate between RP's personal opinions and his Constitutional limited government obligations and responsibilities. RP has every intention of following the constitution --- it is up to YOU at the state level to disgree with one of RP's personal beliefs(if you live in Texas). Whether that be prostitution, gambling, or abortion. But remember HE is fighting for YOUR rights on the federal level so you will have a voice at the state level(in your state). To disagree or disagree with him at the state level has nothing to do with Ron Paul at the Federal level.

TMIKE

[WilliamC]

Turn the question around. Should the Federal government require that all localities make prostitution legal? I don't think so. The good thing about having local governments exert more control over morality issues is that one can move away if one doesn't like the laws.

I happen to live in a dry county, no alcohol sales allowed. Now I do drink occasionally, maybe several times a year, so I'm no prohibitionist, and certainly people in my county are allowed to possess and consume alcohol on their private property. The issue came up for a vote a few years ago and I voted to keep the ban. Why? I happen to like living in a dry county, it doesn't inconvieience me, and in a way it hinders population growth since many resturants don't want to locate here because they can't serve alcohol. The ban sort of keeps the community with a "small town" feel which I like.

Now I wouldn't support a State ban on alcohol sales, but it would certainly be Constitutional for Mississippi to ban public alcohol sales/consumption should it so choose. At the same time I don't think it would be Constitutional for a State to mandate that every citizen drink alcohol.

Methinks that there are people who actually want to live in certain types of communities, and so long as they are peaceful and don't go about violating others private property rights so what if they want to have unusual local customs or laws?

With regards to prostitution, I can see local communities banning public businesses or public advertising of prostitution but even in those communities what people do in the privacy of their own homes should be sacrosanct.

[.Tom]

First of all, Ron Paul never said this.

I truly believe Ron is a libertarian (I respectfully disagree with him on abortion, because I think he views abortion as violating the non aggression principle, which I can understand).

But if he would really vote to ban private contractual relations at any level of government, then that goes against everything he stands for and makes him a complete hypocrite.

The state is the state, whether it's at the federal, state, or local level. And it's always the enemy of liberty at every level.

But, as I said earlier, he never said this nor have I ever read anything suggesting this is his view.

I'm actually quite positive Dr. Paul would vote to legalize it, based on his support of freedom of association and freedom of contract.

[literatim]

I think people should quit putting their views onto Ron Paul.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I know there are some of you guys that Sooooo want to believe that Ron Paul supports prostitution. I remember his speech at Rally for the Republic and how he talked about morality. He said if you want moral politicians you won't get them from an immoral society. Prostitution is immoral. My vote is that Dr. Paul would vote against legal prostitution. He IS a conservative Christian...(at the local level of course) and I DO believe the entire point of it ALL is limited Federal government and if it's not; in the Constitution , leave it to the states and to the people. What good is a 10th amendment if the people are not allowed to VOTE on a matter????? TONES

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I know there are some of you guys that Sooooo want to believe that Ron Paul supports prostitution. I remember his speech at Rally for the Republic and how he talked about morality. He said if you want moral politicians you won't get them from an immoral society. Prostitution is immoral. My vote is that Dr. Paul would vote against legal prostitution. He IS a conservative Christian...(at the local level of course) and I DO believe the entire point of it ALL is limited Federal government and if it's not; in the Constitution , leave it to the states and to the people. What good is a 10th amendment if the people are not allowed to VOTE on a matter????? TONES

Yes, sex is immoral, blah blah blah Christian tyranny. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

What good is a 10th amendment if the people are not allowed to VOTE on a matter????? TONES

Because some things (a whole lot of things, in fact) should be left up to each individual to decide for themselves. That's why!

That is why the 10th amendment mentions THE PEOPLE. It's not so they can vote to decide whether you can use dental floss, or a whole litany of things that the government, at any level, has no business dictating. It is because THE PEOPLE, individually, have a right to make the decision their own selves.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, sex is immoral, blah blah blah Christian tyranny. :rolleyes:

blah, blah, blah, Humanist bullshit. :rolleyes:

[Brian in Maryland]

And prostitution is not really protected by the constitution, so states can do what they please

9th amendment-"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

It is a consensual act between 2 (or more) people. Someone is contracted for services (most likely a verbal contract). Contracts should be enforced by the government. Whether I think it is immoral or not isn’t relevant. I don't think people should be smoking cigarettes, but as long as I don't have to breathe in their smoke it's not hurting me.

[literatim]

9th amendment-"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

It is a consensual act between 2 (or more) people. Someone is contracted for services (most likely a verbal contract). Contracts should be enforced by the government. Whether I think it is immoral or not isn’t relevant. I don't think people should be smoking cigarettes, but as long as I don't have to breathe in their smoke it's not hurting me.

The Ninth Amendment is there to restrain the federal government, not the States. I figured people here of all places would know that.

[Bman]

The Ninth Amendment is there to restrain the federal government, not the States. I figured people here of all places would know that.

I disagree. If you look at the ninth it says the PEOPLE. The states themselves have limitations. I figured people here of all places would know that. The bill of rights supercedes any government regulation, so does the entire constitution for that matter. It doesn't matter where it comes from, somethings government is not supposed to be involved at all. Otherwise why even have a Supreme Court?

[RM918]

Immoral or not, so long as both parties consent what right is it of anyone to tell them not to? Legislating morals is how we got into this mess to begin with.

I view prostitution a lot like I view the argument on drug legalization - it would be a lot better, and safer, for everyone if you just legalized it and got the government out of the way. Another loss of revenue for criminals.

Also, what about adultery? That's immoral. Should we ban that, too? How about calling someone a retard? A lot of folks think homosexuality is immoral. Or sneezing without covering your mouth!

Where the hell does it end? Not anytime soon.

[Bman]

Legislating morals is how we got into this mess to begin with.


Yup. To many people can't seem to realize that they themselves have created the monster they seem to loathe so much. You try to tell other people how to live their lives, someone will tell you how to live yours. The contradiction should be so easy to see. Ignorance truly must be bliss.

[Knightskye]

When you ban something, you create a black market for it, as if there weren't one already with regards to prostitution.

It's not a good idea to ban it, whatever your religion tells you.

[MRoCkEd]

STOSSEL: Prostitution?
PAUL: I think when you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and you can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms. So if they do things you don't like and you might find morally repugnant, I as an individual do not make that judgment. So I don't think government can legislate virtue. I can reject it personally and preach against it, whether its drugs or prostitution, but my solution comes from my personal behavior with myself and how I raise my children. Whether its personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice.
STOSSEL: Adults, you seem to be saying, own their own bodies and if a woman wants to rent hers out, that's her business? And if he wants or she wants to smoke crack?
PAUL: Yeah, I think it's tragic and a matter of fact I think the war on drugs [has] pushed a lot of people into prostitution. But you know, I think people make bad choices in religion and philosophy but we don't regulate their thinking or their religious beliefs. That's why I defend this position that individuals should protect themselves. Governments can't protect individuals from themselves; it's just impossible. Otherwise, they become a tyrannical state.

YouTube - Ron Paul Discusses Drugs With John Stossel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6TxLCfWbg)

[tonesforjonesbones]

I don't care to legislate morality either..so its best to keep these things off ballots..because if I have to choose yay or na;y...I'll choose nay.

There is nothing wrong with sex...in the proper circumstances and I don't particull;ary care what people do...but if it's put to a vote, immoral issues like prostitution will get a nay vote from me. TONES

[LibertyEagle]

I don't care to legislate morality either..so its best to keep these things off ballots..because if I have to choose yay or na;y...I'll choose nay.

There is nothing wrong with sex...in the proper circumstances and I don't particull;ary care what people do...but if it's put to a vote, immoral issues like prostitution will get a nay vote from me. TONES

No one is forcing you to choose anything. You do have the option not to choose at all, you know.

[ClayTrainor]

There is nothing wrong with sex...in the proper circumstances and I don't particull;ary care what people do

What are the "proper circumstances"?


...but if it's put to a vote, immoral issues like prostitution will get a nay vote from me. TONES

Casting such a vote contradicts libertarian principles, imo. By voting "no" on prostitution, you are basically voting for prohibition of a marketable item, and turning it into a dangerous criminal black market that oppresses women and empowers criminals.

You're not doing anything "moral" and are in fact perpetuating a system that hurts people, by voting no on prostitution.

[LibertyEagle]

Clay, I could care less if someone chooses to prostitute their body. That is their own decision. But, I also have no problem with a town populace who decides to pass a local ordinance not allowing it in certain areas of town, or within city limits at all.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Clay, I could care less if someone chooses to prostitute their body. That is their own decision. But, I also have no problem with a town populace who decides to pass a local ordinance not allowing it in certain areas of town, or within city limits at all.

So you have no problem with tyranny, as long as it's local. Gotcha.

[low preference guy]

I think MRoCkEd wins this thread.


STOSSEL: Prostitution?
PAUL: I think when you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and you can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms. So if they do things you don't like and you might find morally repugnant, I as an individual do not make that judgment. So I don't think government can legislate virtue. I can reject it personally and preach against it, whether its drugs or prostitution, but my solution comes from my personal behavior with myself and how I raise my children. Whether its personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice.
STOSSEL: Adults, you seem to be saying, own their own bodies and if a woman wants to rent hers out, that's her business? And if he wants or she wants to smoke crack?
PAUL: Yeah, I think it's tragic and a matter of fact I think the war on drugs [has] pushed a lot of people into prostitution. But you know, I think people make bad choices in religion and philosophy but we don't regulate their thinking or their religious beliefs. That's why I defend this position that individuals should protect themselves. Governments can't protect individuals from themselves; it's just impossible. Otherwise, they become a tyrannical state.

YouTube - Ron Paul Discusses Drugs With John Stossel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6TxLCfWbg)

[LibertyEagle]

So you have no problem with tyranny, as long as it's local. Gotcha.

A person's liberty only extends as far as where they infringe on someone else's liberty. Is that not the libertarian creed?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

A person's liberty only extends as far as where they infringe on someone else's liberty. Is that not the libertarian creed?

How is prostitution infringing on anyone else's liberty?

[LibertyEagle]

Did I say I thought that anyone should be stopped from prostituting their own body, if they so chose?

No, I did not.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Did I say I thought that anyone should be stopped from prostituting their own body, if they so chose?

No, I did not.

Yes you did. First you say that you don't care if people prostitute their bodies, then you go on to say you aren't against local municipalities making it illegal. Can you say anything more contradictory?

First they come for the communists, but you are not a communist.
Then they come for the jews, but you are not a jew.
Then they come for the muslims, but you are not a muslim.
Then they come for christians, but you are not a christian.
Then they come for capitalists, but you are not a capitalist.
Then they come for you.

As it is said (Paraphrased a little). You either are for liberty at any level of the State, or you like to legislate your morality, vis a vis tyranny. The only logical assumption I can make is, that as long as some totality of the population is for it, then it is ok, and as long as it is kept local, then it is ok. Well, then, you are for tyranny, only if it is local. Clarify?

[LibertyEagle]

Yes you did. First you say that you don't care if people prostitute their bodies, then you go on to say you aren't against local municipalities making it illegal.
Illegal to set up their practice within certain locations of the town, yes. For example, next to schools. Or is this the type of education you want to give to grade schoolers?


Can you say anything more contradictory?
You mean like when you chastise people for not having strict enough principles against war-mongering, amongst other things, while you yourself are in the military?


First they come for the communists, but you are not a communist.
Then they come for the jews, but you are not a jew.
Then they come for the muslims, but you are not a muslim.
Then they come for christians, but you are not a christian.
Then they come for capitalists, but you are not a capitalist.
Then they come for you.

Give me a freakin' break. No one suggested going for the prostitutes. All I said is that a town can decide if and where prostitution can be PRACTICED within their city limits.

Is it too hard for you to go beyond your city limits?


As it is said (Paraphrased a little). You either are for liberty at any level of the State, or you like to legislate your morality, vis a vis tyranny. The only logical assumption I can make is, that as long as some totality of the population is for it, then it is ok, and as long as it is kept local, then it is ok. Well, then, you are for tyranny, only if it is local. Clarify?
There you go with the all or nothing thing, when you yourself fail that litmus test.

Remember the concept of not requiring a one-size-fits-all? Well, that applies to localities too. If you don't like it, work against it, or move to another town. Just like how I would do if my town started allowing prostitution, or nuclear reactors on every corner.

[literatim]

I disagree. If you look at the ninth it says the PEOPLE. The states themselves have limitations. I figured people here of all places would know that. The bill of rights supercedes any government regulation, so does the entire constitution for that matter. It doesn't matter where it comes from, somethings government is not supposed to be involved at all. Otherwise why even have a Supreme Court?

You can disagree all you want, that doesn't make you any less wrong.

[.Tom]

So you have no problem with tyranny, as long as it's local. Gotcha.

+1

That's my sentiments exactly with a lot of this "it's not tyranny if the state or local government does it".

[Knightskye]

There is nothing wrong with sex...in the proper circumstances and I don't particull;ary care what people do...but if it's put to a vote, immoral issues like prostitution will get a nay vote from me. TONES

Why can't you vote present?

[.Tom]

Even if you personally don't approve of something, you should still vote for other's right to do it. That's what freedom is all about.

[ClayTrainor]

+1

That's my sentiments exactly with a lot of this "it's not tyranny if the state or local government does it".


It's also worth noting that government always grows and centralizes. Local government won't be local government for very long.

Even if you personally don't approve of something, you should still vote for other's right to do it. That's what freedom is all about.

I like this Tom guy, you should post more. :D

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It's also worth noting that government always grows and centralizes. Local government won't be local government for very long.


I like this Tom guy, you should post more. :D

Amen.

[Brian in Maryland]

Ron Paul's position isn't as "live and let live" as it might seem -- he's just against unconstitutional meddling at the federal level.

I disagree, here's some pretty strong evidence to support my disagreement, his own words:
YouTube - Ron Paul on Drugs and Prostitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypYBfvnwBTc)

Sorry, I see someone posted a version of this video earlier in the thread. I do like the comments inserted into this version though.

[Brian in Maryland]

The Ninth Amendment is there to restrain the federal government, not the States. I figured people here of all places would know that.
You're wrong. The only valid purpose of government is to protect rights.

Beside that, I don't know about other states, you need to look at your state’s constitution, here in Maryland the state constitution, declaration of rights, states that the U.S. constitution is the supreme law of the state. The last time I looked that included the bill of rights and the 9th amendment, not to mention the 10th… “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

[CCTelander]

You're wrong. The only valid purpose of government is to protect rights.

Beside that, I don't know about other states, you need to look at your state’s constitution, here in Maryland the state constitution, declaration of rights, states that the U.S. constitution is the supreme law of the state. The last time I looked that included the bill of rights and the 9th amendment, not to mention the 10th… “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Almost all state constitutions contain similar language, making the argument that the BoR applies only against the FedGov pretty moot.

[Bman]

You can disagree all you want, that doesn't make you any less wrong.

Pahlease! You're argument is lacking. State rights < Personal rights. You need to read the constitiution again. Or go over to stormfront and dream of days were ignorance prevailed.

[.Tom]

The whole idea of "state's rights" is a joke.

I mean seriously.

The state is the enemy of liberty. Saying the state has rights is absolutely absurd. Arguing that the state, at any level, has the right to take away any of your liberties is ridiculous.

[Andrew-Austin]

The whole idea of "state's rights" is a joke.

I mean seriously.

The state is the enemy of liberty. Saying the state has rights is absolutely absurd. Arguing that the state, at any level, has the right to take away any of your liberties is ridiculous.

If you sprinkle magic constitutional pixie dust over a 'local' state, that gives them rights though.

[jkr]

prostitution's legal?

[nbhadja]

So you have no problem with tyranny, as long as it's local. Gotcha.

I disappointed that so many people here support local government tyranny. Tyranny is tryanny period.

No form of government should EVER have the power to legislate morals on stuff like drugs, prostitution.

It is sad to see many people on here not learn from the past. Legalislating morality is never a good thing and it is an enemy of freedom.

[nbhadja]

STOSSEL: Prostitution?
PAUL: I think when you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and you can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms. So if they do things you don't like and you might find morally repugnant, I as an individual do not make that judgment. So I don't think government can legislate virtue. I can reject it personally and preach against it, whether its drugs or prostitution, but my solution comes from my personal behavior with myself and how I raise my children. Whether its personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice.
STOSSEL: Adults, you seem to be saying, own their own bodies and if a woman wants to rent hers out, that's her business? And if he wants or she wants to smoke crack?
PAUL: Yeah, I think it's tragic and a matter of fact I think the war on drugs [has] pushed a lot of people into prostitution. But you know, I think people make bad choices in religion and philosophy but we don't regulate their thinking or their religious beliefs. That's why I defend this position that individuals should protect themselves. Governments can't protect individuals from themselves; it's just impossible. Otherwise, they become a tyrannical state.

YouTube - Ron Paul Discusses Drugs With John Stossel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6TxLCfWbg)



+1

I have heard Ron Paul himself say it should be legal

Ron Paul is a friend of liberty. He does not want even state governments destroying liberty.

[nbhadja]

It's also worth noting that government always grows and centralizes. Local government won't be local government for very long.


I like this Tom guy, you should post more. :D

Another great point. A bunch of powerful local governments will eventually turn into a strong central government. We have seen it over and over again.

If the people on RPF cannot see it, then I doubt anyone can.
History will repeat itself if you give local governments power over freedom.