Political Theory

Re: Which do they really hate: "vulgar libertarianism" or simply capitalism?

wilderness — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:57:36 GMT

liberty student:

wilderness:
Now if the State is removed will such sexual encounters disappear?

No. People will always pay for sex. It's as important as hair cuts and shoe shines.

I wouldn't doubt it, but now I think we have two issues. Prostitution and Taboo.

wilderness:
Maybe in time, the Stateless culture would deem such acts as taboo

liberty student:

To have a taboo, you need a state. Without a state, all you have are personal preferences and consequences.

Taboo's need not a State. Taboo's are probably as ancient as man and woman and might even be perceived with other animals. It is merely the stigma a culture attaches to any pattern. Example: "...the taboo of the Tutchone, a people native to the Yukon territory of northwestern Canada, against eating otters, young ravens, or crows, even though their meat is perfectly edible. In their northern forest homeland, seasonal food shortages are always a threat, but even when faced with famine, the Tutchone adhere to their taboo. Instead of eating these animals, they resort to techniques such as finding an area previously used by mice and lighting a fire over it to melt the frozen soil, providing access to bare roots previously stored by the mice." (Cultural Anthropology; Haviland)

Tutchone:

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0008176

They were bands of people. Bands are the simplest form of society.

So would a man or woman find a full time job in exchanging sex for another valued pattern? I don't know, but I find that being their only form of production difficult to foresee. Would they sometimes? The probably increases that they would. Could a culture develop that has a taboo against prostitution? Currently there are cultures that have developed a taboo against prostitution. I know of people today, subcultures in the U.S., that disagree with prostitution. Not because it is against the law, but because they find it distasteful. These people express shame towards sex for money. Expressing shame or sarcasm towards something that is deemed distasteful may not necessarily fit Aristotelian logic, but these expressions, as I mentioned, are probably as ancient for man and woman as ancient as man and woman on this earth. I don't profess to know for a fact, who can, but undoubtedly they are ancient.

Re: Which do they really hate: "vulgar libertarianism" or simply capitalism?

liberty student — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 02:25:11 GMT

wilderness:
Now if the State is removed will such sexual encounters disappear?

No. People will always pay for sex. It's as important as hair cuts and shoe shines.

wilderness:
Maybe in time, the Stateless culture would deem such acts as taboo

To have a taboo, you need a state. Without a state, all you have are personal preferences and consequences.

Re: Which do they really hate: "vulgar libertarianism" or simply capitalism?

wilderness — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:59:01 GMT

wombatron:

JonBostwick:

What you call "taking advantage of", I call harmony of interests. You may think the woman would be best off if she was unable to find any willing customers, but she doesn't share that outlook.

I would think it best if she didn't have to find customers at all, if we are still talking about street prostitutes. Anyway, what needs to be changed is the background conditions that lead to such things. And the best start would be (surprise, surprise) getting rid of the state.

I don't see how a woman or man on the streets selling sex for monetary gains or some other good bartered in the economic exchange is a crime. Morally we could argue all day and I would argue against it. I don't have a daughter, but all I have to do is think about if I had a daughter would I encourage her to do this - no. Or let's think of somebody that exists like my sister. Would I encourage her to do this - no! Yet in terms of crime no acts of aggression can be noted. Shameful maybe, but criminal no. Now if the one, the man or woman, knows that they have a disease they can transmit to somebody during sex, then that man or woman is a murderer. They know having sex with somebody else will kill them. That is a crime.

Now if the State is removed will such sexual encounters disappear? I don't know, but as stated I would argue against them. Maybe in time, the Stateless culture would deem such acts as taboo and nobody would want to, but if they occur, then it would go against my principles to stone them.

Re: Which do they really hate: "vulgar libertarianism" or simply capitalism?

wombatron — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:35:42 GMT

JonBostwick:

What you call "taking advantage of", I call harmony of interests. You may think the woman would be best off if she was unable to find any willing customers, but she doesn't share that outlook.

I would think it best if she didn't have to find customers at all, if we are still talking about street prostitutes. Anyway, what needs to be changed is the background conditions that lead to such things. And the best start would be (surprise, surprise) getting rid of the state.

Re: Which do they really hate: "vulgar libertarianism" or simply capitalism?

Bostwick — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:32:59 GMT

Juan:
The rise of taboo against prostitution has coincided with the rise of "women's rights"
Right. Religious nuts/conservatives/puritans/catholics/etc have always been big supporters of prostitution....

Predictable response. All those things existed a long time before the decline of the brothel began( except maybe puritans.)

In Shakespeare's England, Theatre and brothels were practically moral equivalents, existing next to each other; only 400 years ago.

Re: Which do they really hate: "vulgar libertarianism" or simply capitalism?

liberty student — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:32:01 GMT

Juan:
The rise of taboo against prostitution has coincided with the rise of "women's rights"
Right. Religious nuts/conservatives/puritans/catholics/etc have always been big supporters of prostitution....

That would make sense. I know you were being facetious (do you have any other mode?) but we recently talked about this on marketing forum I participate on. There was some survey, and men who ID'd as religiously oriented, were more likely to buy online porn. Presumably because it is discreet and allows them to indulge a natural curiosity/drive without publicly going against their stated beliefs.

The conclusion of the conversation was that you could make a lot of money off peddling sex to people who front sexually repressive social facades by catering to their neurosis about privacy.

We already know repression will create black markets, why wouldn't non-governmental cultural/social repression have a similar effect?

Re: Which do they really hate: "vulgar libertarianism" or simply capitalism?

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:21:17 GMT

they are often found apologising to each other for having done it........

for catholics at least its something to confess about. id imagine the confessional ceremony would be very boring and empty if one never sinned.

Re: Which do they really hate: "vulgar libertarianism" or simply capitalism?

Juan — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:18:38 GMT

The rise of taboo against prostitution has coincided with the rise of "women's rights"

Right. Religious nuts/conservatives/puritans/catholics/etc have always been big supporters of prostitution....

Re: Which do they really hate: "vulgar libertarianism" or simply capitalism?

Bostwick — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:12:21 GMT

wombatron:
But the pre-existing conditions may influence her to do things that she would otherwise not do. I can't say "force", because there isn't any direct aggression, but that doesn't mean that taking advantage of someone isn't immoral. It's just not something that she can be legally compensated for. The customers are not responsible for the background conditions, but they are still responsible for their own actions.

What you call "taking advantage of", I call harmony of interests. You may think the woman would be best off if she was unable to find any willing customers, but she doesn't share that outlook.

wombatron:
I was being unclear. You are right, of course, although I would say that patriarchy is a necessary condition for street prostitution to arise (but not a sufficient one, as you noted). Although... can I make such a prediction? At first glance, it is a praxeological question, but I'm going to have to think about this one...

The rise of taboo against prostitution has coincided with the rise of "women's rights" (in the broadest sense). Even if a paternal policy, it is clearly intended as a pro-woman policy.

Re: Which do they really hate: "vulgar libertarianism" or simply capitalism?

hayekianxyz — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:51:14 GMT

Juan:
Well, that seems to show that your knowledge of spanish is as good as your opinions on the division of labour...

Forgive me that I don't speak Spanish, although I understand Portuguese, so not all is lost.

Re: Which do they really hate: "vulgar libertarianism" or simply capitalism?

Juan — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:48:49 GMT

Automatic translations are so funny. Well, that seems to show that your knowledge of spanish is as good as your opinions on the division of labour... (the first sentence is OK though. I guess that every 1000 mistakes that thing gets one sentence right.)

Re: Which do they really hate: "vulgar libertarianism" or simply capitalism?

wombatron — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:46:38 GMT

JonBostwick:
Right, but what pre existing conditions "force" a woman into prostitution are not the fault of her customers. Those conditions would exist with or without those customers. While the prostitute may be "pushed around", it is certainly not by her customers, without whom she would be worse off. (Though obviously any individual customer has the potential to be criminal).

But the pre-existing conditions may influence her to do things that she would otherwise not do. I can't say "force", because there isn't any direct aggression, but that doesn't mean that taking advantage of someone isn't immoral. It's just not something that she can be legally compensated for. The customers are not responsible for the background conditions, but they are still responsible for their own actions.

JonBostwick:
Though to say that street prostitution arises from patriarchalism, rather than perhaps along side it, is silly. Clearly many ancient ( and modern?) societies in which borthels have flourished were extremely patriarchial.

I was being unclear. You are right, of course, although I would say that patriarchy is a necessary condition for street prostitution to arise (but not a sufficient one, as you noted). Although... can I make such a prediction? At first glance, it is a praxeological question, but I'm going to have to think about this one...

Re: Which do they really hate: "vulgar libertarianism" or simply capitalism?

hayekianxyz — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:41:51 GMT

Juan:
You seem to be becoming very adept at evasive answers.

Algunas personas son mejores líderes que otros. Vaya a cualquiera educa alto donde el maestro ha dividido a personas en grupos para hacer un proyecto para una ilustración propensa de esto.

Is that easier?

Re: Which do they really hate: "vulgar libertarianism" or simply capitalism?

wombatron — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:34:58 GMT

GilesStratton:
But it seems to me that the business hierarchy is an unnatural one in which those are the top are there by virtue of "skills" other than those that would be rewarded by the free market.

This much, at least, we can agree on.

Re: Which do they really hate: "vulgar libertarianism" or simply capitalism?

Juan — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 23:34:21 GMT

Juan: Pushing people around is part of the division of labor ? That's news...
Some people are better leaders than others. Go to any high school where the teacher has divided people into groups to do a project for an apt illustration of this.

You seem to be becoming very adept at evasive answers.