It's ok. I'll introduce him to the concepts of consumer/producer surplus, and deadweight loss.

Ready for your lesson Xeno?

Flint,

<Even in legalized nations the whores feel mental anguish over their choice.>
I'm sure some do. But considering how many occupations have a high risk of poor mental health, it's obviously not a valid reason for outlawing it.

<Even with condoms some STD's can spread (Genital Herpes has been known to grow in other areams, condoms break, etc.)>

So? That is the risk participants choose to face, and is no reason to outlaw it. With this logic, we may as well outlaw sex for those infected with incurable STIs. Moreover, other occupations risk far worse hazards.

<if they made the wrong choice, they live with it, including an arrest record>

The point is that it's counterproductive if the objective is to "save" them from "exploitation."

<Btw those 'sluts' give it for free. Sex is an unlimited commodity and that's why the margins on it are so high.>

Sex is never free. If it was, then prostitution wouldn't exist, and the fair market value for call girls would definitely not be ~$200/hr.

<Btw Justinian, as the current Prophet on Earth, I curse your next solicitation of sex to lead to a child and that the lady successfully tracks you down and attempts to get you to act the father.>

Actually, that would be a blessing.

V.Kemp,

LOL! A humorous description of our society . But I am not of the opinion that I need to restrain myself from using whatever power I have at my disposal to protect freedom from a stupid majority. I won't stand by as they abuse their freedom to take mine away. I consider it fitting to call it what it is, a war. And I don't believe in a gentleman's war where I tie my hands behind my back. No, I fight to win.

Zarf,

It's not that they disagree with me or anyone else. Parties in typical disagreements share many values, and the conflicting issues are about priorities and facts. For example, many of us agree that a government should do what minimizes poverty. However, some will argue that increased welfare spending will accomplish that best, while others argue that the best solution is to lower welfare spending and the minimum wage.

With fanatics, our definition isn't what's important. From experience, most fanatics pose no threat and can be ignored. However, other fanatics are all together different. When anyone desires to deprive you of your freedoms or even you life, merely because it matches his/her view of how the world ought to be, then there is nothing to debate about. Instead, they have declared war on you. And what other choice is there but to settle the dispute with blood and steel?

Kemp,

Sometimes, freedom is a zero-sum game. You have to take it away from a minority so that the majority can keep it.

No one would object to denying academic employment to a politically active holocaust denier, and it's not unusual for Europeans to imprison them. David Irving is a recent example. Likewise, this woman's socially conservative views are no less extremist than holocaust deniers. I generally don't agree with employment discrimination, but I have no sympathy for that woman's defense. I'm also partial to European laws that imprisons extremists like her, stopping them from preaching hate.

Xeno,

Because I have been enlightened by "The Prince," "Dictator's Handbook," and "History of the Peloponnesean War." I used to be an idealist, until I discovered how futile changing the state of affairs is. The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. I accept it, and I move on.

Flint,

I think you fail to understand the divide between social conservatives and those with libertarian tendencies. A coalition between them may overcome the Democratic party, but if social conservatives like you impose moral policing on us, then that coalition will break apart in the long-run.

In other words, a unified hatred of Obama may bring conservatives together on a united front. But it won't take long for the disagreements on moral policing to fracture the coalition.

^ Agreed. Social conservatives hate freedom. Santorum said as much.

I won't deny I greatly disapprove of Obama. As an independent, he disagrees on most of what I stand for on economic, political and social issues.

Economic:
1. Limit regulations to market failures like externalities and natural monopolies.

2. 100% international free trade, except when national security is threatened.

3. Eliminate the minimum wage, else reduce it no higher than $4.00 an hour. This will allow teenagers to get work experience and decrease unemployment.

4. Eliminate the laws forbidding strike-busts. I have nothing against negotiation, but competition should apply both ways.

5. Adopt a more "buyer beware" consumer protection policy. If consumers are too stupid to read their loan conditions, or understand that McDonalds packs their food with calories, then that's their problem. On the other hand, laws against deception to reasonable persons should be upheld. As it stands, consumer protection laws often serve as a barrier to entering the marketplace.

6. As part of a strategy to cut government spending, start slashing government welfare programs, cancel all government pensions, except those paid to police officers and military, and privatize social security and health care.

7. Eliminate the perverse incentives (intended to increase equality) for banks to recklessly lend. Second, eliminate all price controls like New York City's price ceiling on rent. Leave it to the market.

8. Start paying off the governmnt debt rather than adding to it.

9. Relax environmental regulations to meet our economy's needs.

Political

1. Impose discipline on the EPA. I don't stand for slashing them, but that agency has done ridiculous things like designate a dug-out hole for housing construction as a wetland after it rained.

2. Adequately fund the criminal justice system. It's overloaded with work, yet there are an abundance of unemployed lawyers.

3. More government in the sunshine laws, because government just isn't transparent enough.

4. Eliminate the president's ability to unilaterally deploy troops or order military strikes without congressional approval, unless the strike is authorized by treaty or conditions approved by congress.

Social:

1. Legalize prostitution and relax restrictions on drugs. Additionally, rather than focus on arresting drug suppliers, focus on rehabilitating drug users.

2. Make general abortion legal until the 3rd trimester, and keep contraception legal and widely available.

3. Permit greater flexibility for employees to negotiate with their employers, such as sacrifice time/half pay for more hours, or sacrifice benefits for higher pay.

4. Allow bankruptcy to apply to student loans, and privatize student aid.

5. Reduce the government's involvement in education to the minimum. It's only increasing administrative costs.

6. Privatize marriage.

However, social conservatives like Santorum scare the hell out of me. He is a foreign policy hawk, admitted he dislikes the libertarian wing of the Republican party, and is a prudish busybody who wants to police morality. Recently, I resolved to make a pragmatic decision. No matter how much I agree with them on economic or political issues, my position is soundly

I have another monopoly for Kemp. Marriage!

Just out of curiosity. When I think of "rich," I think of $100 million + in assets. A doctor is not rich in my book. Do you people consider doctors rich, seriously?

If it weren't for the fact that government programs caused the price of tuition to be inflated, then I would agree that everyone of merit could afford their own education. These days, yes, I swear only the women seem to care about performing well. But then, can you blame the men? There are more women in college than men, for real.