In case you didn’t see it on CNN - the citizens of San Francisco have an opportunity to decriminalize prostitution on Novemeber 4th. From the AP:
San Francisco would become the first major U.S. city to decriminalize prostitution if voters next month approve Proposition K — a measure that forbids local authorities from investigating, arresting or prosecuting anyone for selling sex.
The ballot question technically would not legalize prostitution since state law still prohibits it, but the measure would eliminate the power of local law enforcement officials to go after prostitutes.
First of all, I think it is sad to see the reason why that proponents of this measure hope it will be passed:
…proponents of Proposition K say their proposal has a better shot in San Francisco, which they believe is more sexually liberal than the city across the bay.
Sexual liberation is the worst reason to support decriminalisation of prostitution, in the same way that the desire to actually do drugs is a terrible excuse to push for drug legalisation.
The main concern here is freedom. The fact that adults should have the right to buy, sell and consume whatever they want so long as there is no aggression. Governments have no legitimate authority, not from God or from natural law, to use aggression to prevent people from making decisions that are contained within their own sphere of ownership - namely their body and their property.
There is no question that desires to prevent prostitution are correct and good - but not by law, not by aggression. We may educate them about both the natural and spiritual consequences of their actions, and we may do it with as much passion and conviction as possible, but we have no authority, not even from God, to act as “little gods” and police people’s non-criminal (that is non-aggressive) sin.
If every Christian, instead of ticking of a box authorizing criminal use of government force, instead went out and shared the gospel with one person, just one person, this world would be a lot closer to radical change for the better.
I wonder if you could actually give some Scriptural evidence for this position. There seems to be plenty that contradicts you (Romans 13), so I am wondering if you have any that supports you. Or is this an argument from silence?
I have already made a biblical case for supporting decriminalisation.
How does Romans 13 support the position that the state must aggress against sinners? I am not arguing that these things aren’t sin or wrong. I am arguing that they aren’t criminal and should not be made criminal.
Colin said, “The fact that adults should have the right to buy, sell and consume whatever they want so long as there is no aggression. Governments have no legitimate authority, not from God or from natural law, to use aggression to prevent people from making decisions that are contained within their own sphere of ownership - namely their body and their property.”
I just don’t see it that way. To me it seems that using “aggression” as a measuring stick is pretty myopic. Sure, maybe there is no aggression involved in prostitution, but look at prostitution from a public health point of view. Or from a familial point of view. I’d say that prostitution threatens the physical health of the nation (and then uses tax $ for treating STDs) and it threatens the family structure (and then uses tax $ for public support of children made poor by divorce). To me, outlawing prostitution is just common sense. To put it another way, many “adult” decisions have repercussions that can negatively effect other adults and children.
Those reasons are not religious, in case anybody wonders.
I guess my bigger question is why you feel it is correct and Biblical to claim that those Christians who choose to not agree with your libertarian ideals are voting for criminal acts. This is honestly a difficult subject and a very gray area.
thainamu said: “Sure, maybe there is no aggression involved in prostitution, but look at prostitution from a public health point of view. Or from a familial point of view.”
There are absolutely all sorts of negative aspects to drugs and prostitution other than aggression. But is criminalizing it the way to resolve it? Has it helped? For example, extra-martial sex (non-prostitution) is also a huge cause of STD’s and Marriage problems, so should we criminalize that too? At what point do we allow people to make their own decisions and face the self-inflicted consequences? Huge amounts of tax dollars are spent enforcing these laws, probably more so than the tax dollars spent on treating STD’s, etc.
Maybe we should work more towards educating and helping these people, which I believe is much more helpful in resolving the overall problem than criminalizing them.
These are also non-religious reasons :o)
thainamu, valid points. However, two wrongs don’t make a right. Those tax dollars are also aggression and charging taxes is non-biblical (not paying them, but charging them). So while prostitution and drug use will cost more tax dollars - it is not right to make laws against them for that reason. Secondly, if it’s just about preventing these things - then laws clearly are not working.
Very fair question. The reason these laws are actually criminal acts is because they use offensive (aggressive) physical force or the threat of force to stop these acts. It is akin to me punching every pot-smoker I see in the face because I disagree with his or her lifestyle to “teach them a lesson.” Only the government won’t punch them in the face, it locks them up in jail, extorts money from them and possibly will use physical force as well. It is not biblical for me to do or to vote for someone to do it on my behalf. It is biblical for me to educate, evangelise, proclaim and pray.
“Secondly, if it’s just about preventing these things - then laws clearly are not working.”
I would beg to differ. Those places where these are not prohibited by law have a much bigger problem with them. Amsterdam comes to mind…
Interesting thought, but the facts don’t back you up. The rate of drug abuse in the Netherlands is 1.4% vs 1.3% in America. Pot usage is 12.6% in America vs 5.2% in the Netherlands. How is this a much bigger problem?
I was very surprised to find the country with the highest pot use is New Zealand at 22.23%. It is illegal and the law is enforced. If I smoked pot I would have to do some personal field research.
Decriminalize, educate, and offer people treatment for drug abuse. The current system is a total failure that benefits almost no one.
Holy guacamole!
I agree with this as a compromise solution for the present problem. We could end the drug war, send half the money back to the tax payers, use the other half to set up a gradually privatized (over, say ten years) education and treatment system.
bob, do you think just possibly that the numbers would be higher where they are fighting it because they care whereas in a place that it is legal, they don’t care if everyone is doing it. Those numbers are skewed, obviously.
“Decriminalize, educate, and offer people treatment for drug abuse.”
This assumes that people just lack education, which is a joke. People know that cigarettes are bad for ya, but plenty of people still chain smoke. This is where the Biblical part of your argument breaks down, forgetting the people are evil and not just ignorant.
People who have become “educated” about Christianity to the point of converting are the only people empowered to make actual, meaningful changes. Conversion is the only way to deal with the sin problem of prostitution and drugs - which is the only problem that the bible is concerned with. Drug users, prostitutes and all chronic sinners all need the same kind of treatment - Jesus Christ.
Decriminalization and treatment are things offered by the secular government, so I assumed that education was also of the secular type. I would agree with your statement that people need spiritual education, but that’s not the context of bob’s original statement.
Good points. I got the numbers from several sources, so if they are skewed then several different organizations with different agendas got them wrong, which is possible.
Education, both secular and spiritual, along with treatment does help but it is not a panacea. Yes people still smoke but smoking has been on the decline for a long time in this country. My point was that the trillions spent on the war on drugs hasn’t really produced better results than places where drugs aren’t even illegal and no one spends a dime to stop it. We also tried this with prohibition and drinking rates when prohibition ended were actually higher than when prohibition was initiated. All that happened was the creation of a lot of crime.
If we were to take all the money spent on the war on drugs enforcement, courts, lawyers, lost productivity of people spending years in prison, drug dealers profits, etc., etc. and used it for education and rehabilitation it might be possible to reduce the usage. Maybe. I really don’t see how creating the largest, both in raw numbers and rates, prison population in the world has improved the situation. We’ve been riding this horse for 30 years, I would be willing to give something else a shot.
Connecting this into my marriage contract post, prostitution and adultery could be addressed by contracting not to engage in the behavior. Doing so would then have direct consequences. For example, insurance companies could charge higher premiums on having multiple sexual partners, and contracts used for marriage could also penalize partners outside of the contract agreement.
Atanamis, I think the insurance model for anti-social behaviour is an excellent model. But beware - it does put you on the path towards anarcho-capitalism.
Colin, libertarianism fully supports the lack of government response to non-aggressive antisocial behavior. I am well along the way to libertarian, but so long as I cling to the premise that physical aggression can rightfully be addressed through funds gathered by compulsion, I will not have strayed past the line drawn by libertarianism. The main difference between the two has always been whether force can legitimately be used to enable a “government” to prevent the aggressive use of force on or by those it governs.