prostitution, should it be legal?

SmokeyDan said:

Would you use a rubber for a hooker bj?

Click to expand...

Im too shy for a hooker.
But honestly if my horny impulse kicked in I prolly wouldnt care.
Im a pig

londonfog said:

so you saying Rand Paul is only lying as an attempt to secure votes ? Tell me this is not so, for I thought he was an honest man who spoke his mind even if others disagree.
you own you vehicles, still have to follow rules of the road.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you've asked me questions about Rand Pauls motivations and intents. I'm not a fan of coercive government operatives or coercive government sychophants imaginings.

By the way do you have any candy? Uncle Buck was asking me where he could get a volume discount for a "project" he's working on.


Also I asked you to explain how a private property owner could "own" something, but it was controlled by somebody else. You never answered that question. Give it a try?

Rob Roy said:

I'm not sure why you've asked me questions about Rand Pauls motivations and intents. I'm not a fan of coercive government operatives or coercive government sychophants imaginings.

By the way do you have any candy? Uncle Buck was asking me where he could get a volume discount for a "project" he's working on.


Also I asked you to explain how a private property owner could "own" something, but it was controlled by somebody else. You never answered that question. Give it a try?

Click to expand...

I own my businesses. I still have to follow regulations. If I didn't you would find chemicals hurting the earth. I wouldn't want to hurt the earth nor people on the earth. Same with chemicals harming our planet and people on it, discrimination can do the same. If we allow businesses to do any of these, then we have a problem.

londonfog said:

I own my businesses. I still have to follow regulations. If I didn't you would find chemicals hurting the earth. I wouldn't want to hurt the earth nor people on the earth. Same with chemicals harming our planet and people on it, discrimination can do the same. If we allow businesses to do any of these, then we have a problem.

Click to expand...

If you don't want to hurt others....would you follow "regulations" that harm others ?

Rob Roy said:

If you don't want to hurt others....would you follow "regulations" that harm others ?

Click to expand...

Please explain how regulations harm others.

londonfog said:

Please explain how regulations harm others.

Click to expand...

They serve as a barrier to entry in a given market, thus excluding competition, which brings innovation and better prices for consumers. They enforce the idea that one entity, a coercive government, has the say over who shall do business and under which auspices. The irony is the coercive government IS the biggest monopoly that exists and THEY are going to save you from harm? Their monopoly was not a result of supreme customer service, it came as a result of their grip on the gun...

I could go on, but I have to go buy some candy, Uncle Buck stopped by again and cleaned out the candy bowl. He waddled off in some diapers muttering something about racism.

londonfog said:

Please explain how regulations harm others.

Click to expand...

Gestapo regulations require you to report the activities of all Juden in your neighborhood.

Rob Roy said:

They serve as a barrier to entry in a given market, thus excluding competition, which brings innovation and better prices for consumers. They enforce the idea that one entity, a coercive government, has the say over who shall do business and under which auspices.

I could go on, but I have to go buy some candy, Uncle Buck stopped by again and cleaned out the candy bowl. He waddled off in some diapers muttering something about racism.

Click to expand...

No regulations gives you no FDA to inspect your food. Your meat is now spoiled and your eggs are old and past date, but still sells on the market. A glass of water is teeming with bacteria, because the water company is saving money by not changing out key filters.
You go buy a car, but the car company who wants to save money does not include seat belts, nor air-bags, nor bumpers. Better pricing for you, but damn.
Flying on an aircraft...well they are no longer are required to do C- checks, D- checks, phase checks or any of the likes. Good luck.
Get a cold and want to buy some over the counter medicine. Guess what no regulations on the medicine, so you taking what Bob the plumber made in his basement to sell to the local drugs store.

I could go on and on but why ???

Red1966 said:

Gestapo regulations require you to report the activities of all Juden in your neighborhood.

Click to expand...

Smoke alarm regulations saves lives

londonfog said:

Smoke alarm regulations saves lives

Click to expand...

Some regulations are good, some are bad. Realtors are "self-regulated", meaning totally unregulated. If you've ever tried to buy or sell a house, you would see how some of them make no effort at all to sell your home because they know it will eventually sell regardless and they will still get their 6% of your most valuable asset. I've contacted several realtors and found them to be either extremely slow to respond or not respond at all.

londonfog said:

No regulations gives you no FDA to inspect your food. Your meat is now spoiled and your eggs are old and past date, but still sells on the market. A glass of water is teeming with bacteria, because the water company is saving money by not changing out key filters.
You go buy a car, but the car company who wants to save money does not include seat belts, nor air-bags, nor bumpers. Better pricing for you, but damn.
Flying on an aircraft...well they are no longer are required to do C- checks, D- checks, phase checks or any of the likes. Good luck.
Get a cold and want to buy some over the counter medicine. Guess what no regulations on the medicine, so you taking what Bob the plumber made in his basement to sell to the local drugs store.

I could go on and on but why ???

Click to expand...

Regulations don't always prevent harm. Discretion on the part of a buyer does and this discretion provides the proper feedback to service providers that those who have a good product will succeed, those that commit harms will not succeed, UNLESS they are aided by regulations which PREVENT competition. Dizzy yet?

Companies that don't provide services that customers want are usually displaced by discerning consumers who gravitate to those that do provide services. Of course this economic phenomena applies to any kind of fraudulent or coercive type monopoly.

It's the reason the people that hold a monopoly on the use of force (coercive government) don't care about your feedback....they don't have to....you are forcefully prevented from getting the same "services" from another entity.

Would you buy shitty water? I wouldn't.

londonfog said:

Smoke alarm regulations saves lives

Click to expand...

It's hard to prove a negative....but I'll play your game.

Not buying bombs for children saves lives. Your turn.

Red1966 said:

Gestapo regulations require you to report the activities of all Juden in your neighborhood.

Click to expand...

Hiding slaves in your attic? Ingesting anything we don't approve of?

London Fog....do you like the DEA and their erm "regulations" ?

Also please explain how market feedback is not a good way for a service organization to know if they are doing a good job or not.

If not market feedback, how else is a service provider to know if they are doing something right?

Rob Roy said:

I'm not sure why you've asked me questions about Rand Pauls motivations and intents. I'm not a fan of coercive government operatives or coercive government sychophants imaginings.

By the way do you have any candy? Uncle Buck was asking me where he could get a volume discount for a "project" he's working on.


Also I asked you to explain how a private property owner could "own" something, but it was controlled by somebody else. You never answered that question. Give it a try?

Click to expand...

You continually rail against coercive government. More often than not, I agree with you in principle.

In the post I quoted of yours your almost bashing Rand Paul because he is a fan of coercive government. I won't deny that he is, but show me a politician who has a chance of winning an election who isn't.

For sake of argument, let's remove Paul from the conversation. In my view he is a proponent of less coercion, I'm not an expert on his views, so I can't say that in some area he isn't.

So let us suppose a politician in the form of my view of Paul, that is a guy who is looking at all these forms of coercion by the government and routinely supporting policies that are less coercive and more liberty promoting.

You seem to take a negative view of this person. The alternative to them in the election is supportive of the status quo and more power in government. This hypothetical Paul supports lowering the penalties for things, more liberty, though admittedly not total liberty nor a complete lack of coercion.

Is this not a better option, a step in the right direction?

Would electing Paul who would push for lower sentencing and a abolishing mandatory minimums for drug offenses?

I think my point is that we aren't going to go from our current state to a total free state in one election. This massive police state is going to have to be dismantled piece by piece, slowly over time. It didn't get this way overnight, and it won't go away overnight.

We need to elect people who overtime will pull out blocks of power until the entire block house crumbles.

Is Paul not a step in the right direction for you? At least better than the alternatives?

SmokeyDan said:

You continually rail against coercive government. More often than not, I agree with you in principle.

In the post I quoted of yours your almost bashing Rand Paul because he is a fan of coercive government. I won't deny that he is, but show me a politician who has a chance of winning an election who isn't.

For sake of argument, let's remove Paul from the conversation. In my view he is a proponent of less coercion, I'm not an expert on his views, so I can't say that in some area he isn't.

So let us suppose a politician in the form of my view of Paul, that is a guy who is looking at all these forms of coercion by the government and routinely supporting policies that are less coercive and more liberty promoting.

You seem to take a negative view of this person. The alternative to them in the election is supportive of the status quo and more power in government. This hypothetical Paul supports lowering the penalties for things, more liberty, though admittedly not total liberty nor a complete lack of coercion.

Is this not a better option, a step in the right direction?

Would electing Paul who would push for lower sentencing and a abolishing mandatory minimums for drug offenses?

I think my point is that we aren't going to go from our current state to a total free state in one election. This massive police state is going to have to be dismantled piece by piece, slowly over time. It didn't get this way overnight, and it won't go away overnight.

We need to elect people who overtime will pull out blocks of power until the entire block house crumbles.

Is Paul not a step in the right direction for you? At least better than the alternatives?

Click to expand...

Replacing the cook when cooking a shit covered meatloaf will not make the meat loaf wholesome. Some are better at hiding the shit smell for a while....that's all.

The system relies on coercion, rather than voluntary participation. It also grants a monopoly on the use of force to the coercive people, EVEN if an individual is defending himself or simply wants to be left alone to interact with those that want to interact with him on a peaceful and voluntary basis. I reject coercion, therefore to be consistent I cannot embrace a system that has it as an integral part of its foundation.

So no, Rand Paul is not a step in the right direction for me. He is smarter than most of the other douchebags, likely a result of his dad who knows a good deal about economics etc. I do think he is less douchy than many of the other douchebags that will be paraded around in the upcoming mock election.

Alternatives? If there is no alternative to not have a "leader" , "master", head douche etc. then it is only a contest to chose who will make the less evil master. I stepped away from that trap.


The best alternative is nobody for my appointed leader, I do fine without one.

londonfog said:

Please explain how regulations harm others.

Click to expand...

I repeat my question....would you follow regulations that harm other people?

Rob Roy said:

I repeat my question....would you follow regulations that harm other people?

Click to expand...

depends on the regulation. Some regs. I disagree with, but I do realize it's a give and take. Could you give an example without the smoke and mirrors

londonfog said:

Please explain how regulations harm others.

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

They serve as a barrier to entry in a given market, thus excluding competition, which brings innovation and better prices for consumers.

Click to expand...

interesting.

you claim that being denied entry or facing higher prices or having less options to choose from (competition) causes harm.

gee, retard, what do you think happened before civil rights outlawed denial of service to blacks based on skin color?

congratulation, you racist fucking stooge, you just defeated your own argument.

dumb fuck.

Rob Roy said:

So no, Rand Paul is not a step in the right direction for me. He is smarter than most of the other douchebags, likely a result of his dad who knows a good deal about economics etc.

Click to expand...

a racist who hails racists as his heroes. surprising.