I haven't argued in favor of legalizing prostitution in years.

But, I have recently implied/stated that human sexuality can be described as a market place, though I don't consider it prostitution par se.

Finally, Obama has learned from Arnold, I hope.

The best part of life: "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women."

US is a free market? Lolz? If it was, then it would be legal to hire new employees during a strike, or fire employees at will. Additionally, the US system protects monopolies and creates moral hazards.

Although, Yell brings up a good point. It will raise the costs for employers. I'm personally hesitant about sacrificing economic efficiency for equality. I think we have made too much of this trade-off, and I am at the point of saying "STOP!"

However, the issues she brought up were larger than contraception. She mentioned cases where women required contraception for non-contraceptive purposes, where no working alternative existed for them. I can see the logic in that, but I fail to see how this should persuade us to act. The political and economic costs are high, and there is a simple solution: don't attend a Catholic university. This is an issue that should be brought before the pope, not congress.

Yell,

Human sexuality operates as a market, where men are buyers and women are sellers. It has nothing to do with 'love,' and everything to do with supply and demand.

There's no need to be upset that you can't afford a beautiful woman. If you increase your earnings, you can have bliss too. It's a free market .

I say send them back home, after they have been "disabled." Best way to deal with terrorists is to let them live as parasites among their people.

Flint,

When I lived in WA, I was living comfortably making $8.50 (minimum wage there) an hour with three room mates . Hell, I typically saved 60% of my income, and that was while I spent somewhat imprudently.

I would have pushed the limits of my income if I lived alone, but its preposterous to say people have a right to live alone. Live with others if you can't afford it!

R.I.P Justinian
Killed after accusing Catholic women of colluding to form a cartel to raise the price of sex.

0rion,

When the government imposes a minimum wage, it causes market inefficiencies. Although a minimum wage benefits the poor who are employed, it decreases the number of people firms are willing to employ. This also creates a barrier to teenage employment, and prevents unskilled workers from getting on the job training etc.

Labor laws that prevent strike-breaking and limit firing etc. have the same effect. Unions often impose unreasonable demands such as prevent new technological improvements (loss of jobs) or above-equilibrium wages. Negotiating a higher wage is fine, but not when the law imposes a barrier to competition for employment. If suppliers have to fairly compete for consumers, then it's only fair that laborers have to fairly compete for employment.

Moreover, firms will get out of the costs of a minimum wage if they can. One way they do it is with globalization. Without minimum wage and certain labor laws, there would be less of it.

Actually, the evidence suggests that charter schools are no less wasteful or better than public schools. On the other hand, you raise important points. Tenure is a barrier to competition, and is therefore inefficient.

All barriers to competition, unless national security is at stake, need to be abolished. That includes marriage.

> xeno syndicated wrote:

This may be true, for it would explain why we continue to have so much the trouble on the geopolitical stage, but this is unjustifiable. It seems you are trying to justify the iron rule, as if it weren't morally reprehensible.  Is this your position?>

I believe the iron rule is justified as a practical necessity. As for morality, I am not saying anything about it. My thought is that if you are a statesmen, then your choices are either practice the iron rule or die.