From an economic standpoint, why shouldn't prostituition be legalized? (unemployment, how much, crimes)

[floridasandy]

government as the new pimp? sounds about right.

[austin-steve]

The economic rationales cannot be disconnected from the moral, ethical and social aspects, so the question isn't a legitimate one because you can't simply chop out one side of an equation..

Otherwise you can ask "from an economic standpoint...?" of anything you want and have it pass muster. Euthanize old sick people? From an "economics only" standpoint, why not? Sterilize welfare mothers? That would save a bunch of money.

How about, from an economic standpoint, we all have to drive the exact same vehicles and wear identical denim jeans. They could be mass produced and would would be super cheap. It would make "economic" sense, right?

A better questions would be "what are the pros and cons of decriminalizing prostitution?"

Steve

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by kb09

I'm not talking about WWII, I'm talking about prostitution TODAY in AMERICA.

And I'm talking about prostitution around the world and why it shouldn't be legal.
It sure is true that we, the Dutch, have legalised prostitution, but our banks don't want to be associated with brothels.
But we have no problem with white collar criminals which is sheer hypocrisy. Recently 1 of our banks even tried to employ Nick Leeson who almost brought the Barings Bank to bankruptcy in Singapore.

Besidez, who wants their son or daughter to grow up to become a wh*re?
Heck, I have a 0 tolerance when it comes to (sex)slavery.

Do you believe that people would start dragging poor unsuspecting females off the street, lock them in a cell, and start letting the boys in to do what they want? If you do, I have one word for you; delusional.

From a pure economical standpoint you're right.
This is why Hitler tried to eliminate all the Jews and intellectuals in Poland.

[Fred314X]

Isn't prostitution both legalized and regulated in Nevada? I don't recall any news reports of that state imploding because of it.

[Pug Life]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

Isn't prostitution both legalized and regulated in Nevada? I don't recall any news reports of that state imploding because of it.

That and Gambling too. In fact, the part of Nevada where Prostitution causes the most problems is in Las Vegas, where it's illegal!

I've watched the shows about the Bunny Ranch on HBO and those girls all seem happy, and they're all making more money than I do, and I'm a college educated Registered Investment Advisor!

[Happy Cells]

O.K.

Well, do a cost benefit analysis.
What will legalizing prostitution (and by this thread I take you to mean for the whole U.S.)...what will it cost us, the taxpayer...?
Prostitution will have to be regulated.
There will have to be all sorts of mechanisms to deal with disease prevention, safe sex education, unwanted pregnancies, prostitute abuse and liability.
I imagine there will be considerable legal issues not the least of which will be the sticky issue of marriage. If prostitution is legal but infidelity is not legal and is grounds for divorce than how will we keep married people (men?) from using prostitutes? (married men being by far the largest "consumers" of sex-for-hire) What will we do if we say it is legal to hire someones body for sexual purposes, but not legal to have sexual relations with someone other than your lawfully wedded spouse? What will happen if wives (or husbands) start suing because legalized prostitution lead to the break up of some marriage or other? We'd have to work that out for sure.
Then there is the fairness issue. If prostitution is legalized, and therefore sanctioned by the government, will the prostitutes be forced to provide services equally? In other words, will the prostitutes be exempt from racial or gender discrimination laws now on the books, or prohibited from any form of discrimination like any other public business...What happens when a lone prostitute, or a big prostitution business (and these will surely spring up everywhere due to economies of scale...) refuses to serve people of certain races? What happens when a female prostitute refuses to "service" another female or a man of a different race? What happens when a male prostitute refuses to service a male...or a female....or a different race? I imagine that the prostitution company will get sued...for discrimination, and therefore prostitutes will be more or less forced to "offer their services" to the general public. And that brings up the age issue...we can't have age discrimination either...So all that will have to be hashed out...all the details..the legal consenting age of the prostitute, the "john" etc...So...Of course the market would take over, even if the government regulates prostitution. The old and unattractive would be left out (again) and so there could be some law suits there....not hiring people who want to be prostitutes but don't meet the standard for "looks" etc. And there would have to be SOME standard..otherwise the whole exercise would be for naught....
All the costs will have to be balanced against the income generated from taxing prostitution. If more money comes in than goes out to support the business, then sure....from a PURELY economic standpoint....legalized prostitution makes great "sense"...

[kb09]

Originally Posted by zman0

From an economic standpoint? No reason at all.

Of course, you could just as easily ask: From a public health standpoint, why should prostitution be legalized?

If you ignore the issues against your position, it's very easy to come to the conclusion you want.

The business would provide contraceptives to prevent STD's and pregnancies and would regularly have them tested.

The economic rationales cannot be disconnected from the moral, ethical and social aspects, so the question isn't a legitimate one because you can't simply chop out one side of an equation..

Otherwise you can ask "from an economic standpoint...?" of anything you want and have it pass muster. Euthanize old sick people? From an "economics only" standpoint, why not? Sterilize welfare mothers? That would save a bunch of money.

How about, from an economic standpoint, we all have to drive the exact same vehicles and wear identical denim jeans. They could be mass produced and would would be super cheap. It would make "economic" sense, right?

A better questions would be "what are the pros and cons of decriminalizing prostitution?"

Steve

It's not the government's job to make moral people. If people want to do immoral acts, then it is their constitutional right to do so. If an elderly person wants to be euthanized, then that is their choice. If you extrapolate that onto all eldery people, then it no longer becomes their choice. It's not the government's job to teach people to have morals, it's their job to provide protection and security for people, so euthanizing all elderly people is not providing protection, but instead making people do something that they neccessarily don't want to do. If two consenting adults want to have sex for money, why stop them? Why tell them they can't when it is their constituitional right to do so?

Besidez, who wants their son or daughter to grow up to become a wh*re?
Heck, I have a 0 tolerance when it comes to (sex)slavery.

From a pure economical standpoint you're right.
This is why Hitler tried to eliminate all the Jews and intellectuals in Poland.

No one would want their child to become a *****, but after all is said and done, it's that person's decision to do what they see fit. I'm in no way shape or form a supporter of abortion, but it's the woman's choice to decide whether she wants to keep the kid or not; It's a man or woman's choice to decide whether or not they want to sell their bodies for money. You can't force people to be moral beings, they have to CHOOSE to do so on their own accord.

And btw, I believe Hitler used the Jews as a scapegoat; as for the intellectuals, they were all on his side helping him with war plans and such.

O.K.

Well, do a cost benefit analysis.
What will legalizing prostitution (and by this thread I take you to mean for the whole U.S.)...what will it cost us, the taxpayer...?
Prostitution will have to be regulated.
There will have to be all sorts of mechanisms to deal with disease prevention, safe sex education, unwanted pregnancies, prostitute abuse and liability.

It's a business, and a business handles business cost. Depending on the business, the cost might be different, but it's still a cost of business. In the professional porn industry, actors must be regularly tested for STD's. Do you think in any way shape or form that we as taxpayers pay for that? It's a cost associated with the business.

I imagine there will be considerable legal issues not the least of which will be the sticky issue of marriage. If prostitution is legal but infidelity is not legal and is grounds for divorce than how will we keep married people (men?) from using prostitutes? (married men being by far the largest "consumers" of sex-for-hire) What will we do if we say it is legal to hire someones body for sexual purposes, but not legal to have sexual relations with someone other than your lawfully wedded spouse? What will happen if wives (or husbands) start suing because legalized prostitution lead to the break up of some marriage or other? We'd have to work that out for sure.

Do you think that married men don't go know and have sex with prostitutes? I had to laugh at your question of how we will keep men from using prostitutes. If a wife doesn't have enough faith in her husband to trust him to stay faithful, then I believe a little conseling or something is in order. Just because there are cigarrettes out there, doesn't mean that I'm going to get about five packs and smoke until I vomit.

If a man (or woman for that matter) wants to have sex, let them be and let them do so. As long as it's between two consenting adults, I don't see the problem. If a man wants to cheat on his wife, it's in his every right to do so.

We can sue the cigarrette companies all we want because someone got cancer from smoking cancer sticks for thirty years. Legally speaking, IT'S NOT THEIR PROBLEM (it even says on the box, smoking causes cancer) because once you pick up a cigarrette and smoke it, you are doing it because of your own free will. Same idea. It's not the businesses fault that a married man decided to have sex with a prostitute. They did not drug him, strap him down, and force a man or a woman onto him. He did it of his own accord. So legally speaking, a case brought against a prostitute for breaking up someone's marriage has no bearing.

Then there is the fairness issue. If prostitution is legalized, and therefore sanctioned by the government, will the prostitutes be forced to provide services equally? In other words, will the prostitutes be exempt from racial or gender discrimination laws now on the books, or prohibited from any form of discrimination like any other public business...What happens when a lone prostitute, or a big prostitution business (and these will surely spring up everywhere due to economies of scale...) refuses to serve people of certain races? What happens when a female prostitute refuses to "service" another female or a man of a different race? What happens when a male prostitute refuses to service a male...or a female....or a different race? I imagine that the prostitution company will get sued...for discrimination, and therefore prostitutes will be more or less forced to "offer their services" to the general public.

In big business, don't you have people that specialize in certain areas? Don't you have people that do jobs that some can't - or won't - do? What makes prostitution any different? Is it because it involves sex and people? Do you really want to make me go into detail what one who specializes in a certain area will and will not do? I don't think so.

And that brings up the age issue...we can't have age discrimination either...So all that will have to be hashed out...all the details..the legal consenting age of the prostitute, the "john" etc...So...Of course the market would take over, even if the government regulates prostitution. The old and unattractive would be left out (again) and so there could be some law suits there....not hiring people who want to be prostitutes but don't meet the standard for "looks" etc. And there would have to be SOME standard..otherwise the whole exercise would be for naught....

Have you ever heard of something as requirements or credentials? What would make prostitution any different? Have you ever seen a whino as the executive of a major corporation? Have you ever seen a professional cheerleader who looks like she just smoked meth for ten years? Yea, don't think so. The old are left out of say football and soccer and the unattractive are not models. Should we sue those industries too for discrimination? There has to be some standard in any business. You can't be an exec. in a corporation and in a meeting talk dirty like your at home with the guys. Again, what makes prostitution so much different that it requires it's own set of rules? Once again, it's a business!


[quote]All the costs will have to be balanced against the income generated from taxing prostitution. If more money comes in than goes out to support the business, then sure....from a PURELY economic standpoint....legalized prostitution makes great "sense"... [quote]

A business supports itself, not the government; it's called, what was it again (the french word), oh yea, entrepreneurship. If a business goes under, then it goes under. When and If your able, you get back up and try again. At least, that's how business is supposed to go (the gov't's not supposed to hold your hand at all).

I'm done, If said enough to write an essay.

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Originally Posted by kb09

Seriously, when speaking strictly economics, what is so bad about it? Does it bring in too much money?

When regulated and done right, prostituition can bring in millions - if not billions - annually.

I would seriously like to read the cons of legalizing prostituition; and I don't mean arguements of morality about the issue.

If you want to exclude morality, human suffering and degradation and speak pure “economics”, legalizing anything has an economic upside. So there’s no debate and the thread can be closed.

However, things like morality, human degradation, human suffering… are never mutually exclusive from the pure economics of the debate as whenever one considers the end, one is obligated to consider the means. That’s why your post is entirely bogus. You want to change the rules of debate so that your point of view prevails by considering only one small side of the debate. Legalizing drugs can bring in revenue, leagalizing prostitution can bring in revenue, human slave trading can bring in revenue, murdering people can bring in revenue, pedophiles forcing children into sex slavery can bring in revenues- all from a purely economic point of view, you see.

So what the hell is your point?

[kb09]

Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET

If you want to exclude morality, human suffering and degradation and speak pure “economics”, legalizing anything has an economic upside. So there’s no debate and the thread can be closed.

However, things like morality, human degradation, human suffering… are never mutually exclusive from the pure economics of the debate as whenever one considers the end, one is obligated to consider the means. That’s why your post is entirely bogus. You want to change the rules of debate so that your point of view prevails by considering only one small side of the debate. Legalizing drugs can bring in revenue, leagalizing prostitution can bring in revenue, human slave trading can bring in revenue, murdering people can bring in revenue, pedophiles forcing children into sex slavery can bring in revenues- all from a purely economic point of view, you see.

So what the hell is your point?

And you've totally missed my point. I said from an economic standpoint because morals have no bearing in government. I repeat, MORALS HAVE NO STANDING IN GOVERNMENT. That's why it's called...what was it? Oh yea, seperation of church and state. All of what you mentioned (save drugs and prostitution) is against someone's will. My point is that prostitution is between two CONSENTING ADULTS (consenting and adult being the key words here). People CHOOSE to suffer in a multitude of ways. You choose to suffer when spend the rent or the mortgage on something frivilous. You choose to suffer when you smoke cigarrettes and you know that if you keep it up you can get cancer or some other serious health problem. You choose to suffer when you continue to eat foods packed in sugar, carbs, and fats after you've been diagnosed with diabettes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure or all of the above. Should we outlaw frivilous things, ciggs, and all sorts of bad foods because they cause human suffering?

The main point I see being used against legalizing prostitution is that it's a matter of morals and public health safety. Keyword for public health safety: contraceptives.

And morals...once again, government is not supposed to have morals. Government is meant as an entity that has no morals and feelings. The only time that it is just to outlaw something is if it causes harm to others; for example, murder or rape. If two consenting adults want to have sex and exchange money after it's over, how is that in any way shape or form affecting you? How is it affecting your life personally?

Only when it's illegal does it affect you and everyone else because we as taxpayers are funding the stings that policemen do. It's affecting you and me because we are paying for it.

[Huckleberry3911948]

IMHO i dont think so. it certainly has not helped france. the difference between moral and immoral sex is i think more blurred in france. americans continue to do the wrong thing but feel bad about it. when you stop feeling bad, that is not good.