[Vision2020] RE: Unstable, Doomed, Missed Points

[Jeff Harkins]

Hi Joe,

I think the brothel issue is one of morality.  I did not make the 
law.  But enough citizens and lawmakers must have been persuaded in 
their minds that the sale of sex should be illegal.  If enough people 
are persuaded otherwise, the criminal aspect could be removed (which 
has been done in some jurisdictions e.g., Nevada, Holland).

I guess I can assess the difference between criminal matters and 
civil issues reasonably well - usually rooted in the notion of 
community standards.  I am, of course, not advocating that you SHOULD 
BE ABLE to assess the difference.  Frankly, I am indifferent as to 
how you assess the difference.  Criminal statute and civil statute 
emerge in our republic as a result of a democratic, majority rules 
process - tempered by the oversight of the US Supreme Court.

On the one hand however, it has been argued that the only difference 
between criminal law and civil law is the nature of the sanctions 
imposed.  There is some rational for that - but then the legal 
process differs as well - Miranda rights, etc.

Oh one final point, I would not concede that there are adequate 
"protections" against illegal drugs.  It remains a significant 
problem and I would argue that additional "protections" should be 
considered.  Much along the same rationale, I support the "Jessica's 
law" that is attempting to raise the sanctions for sexual predation 
of children.

At 06:38 AM 3/9/2006, you wrote:
>I guess I don't see why the brothel point is silly, Jeff. The point 
>is that there is plenty of "protectionism" against brothels, illicit 
>drugs, etc. What makes this OK and other forms of protectionism not 
>OK? And you can't point to existing laws, for we could always change the laws.
>
>--
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>=============
>At 01:39 PM 3/8/2006, you wrote:
> >Jeff et. al.
> >
> >Your examples are interesting. Brothels are illegal, so a straw man
> >argument.
> >
> >
> >You can't get out of that point that easily!  A change in the law in
> >Idaho, and brothels could be legal.  Why limit the "free
> >marketplace?"  Regulated brothels might be safer for all, with
> >mandated testing for STDs, etc.  Brothels exist anyway in Idaho, no
> >doubt because they make money and have an eager customer base, so
> >will you come out against the "protectionism" of laws against brothels?
>
>Nope - I would not - and I think you are being somewhat silly.
>
> >A change in Moscow's regulations limiting the size at which a
> >retailer can build (sq. ft. of the building(s) at a given site)
> >would render a Wal-Mart Supercenter thus "illegal."  Then your
> >championing of the Wal-Mart Supercenter would become a "straw man
> >issue" because it would be "illegal" to construct.  Somehow I think
> >you would still be arguing that the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter
> >was blocked unwisely.
>
>Yes, I would make that argument - it would be a foolish thing to do
>and that is why I am engaged in this issue.
>
> >I wonder, do you support anti-trust law of any kind?  Under what
> >circumstances?  When US corporations violate environmental, labor or
> >human rights laws in other nations, laws that are widely accepted in
> >the democratic world, to allow them to out compete business
> >competitors, should any government regulation be imposed to stop 
> such conduct?
>
>Yes, I support the existing anti-trust law in the US.  Do I think
>that the US should interfere in the trade and economics matters of
>other countries?  Sometimes yes, sometimes no.  Each non-democratic
>country brings its own special challenges.  I think we have a
>reasonable strategy for working with China.  On a related note,
>should Latah/Moscow be interfering in the planning and zoning issues
>for Whitman County - absolutely not!