Wulfie's Wurld

Commentary: Prostitution

Before you read any further, go back and reread the commentary about legislating morality. We'll wait for you.

Back so soon? Hm. Oh well, let's move on.

I'm a capitalist. I'm a firm believer in free enterprise and that if there is a market for goods and services, an entrepreneur should be able to make a profit. As long as nobody gets hurt by the goods or services, and take the responsibility to do the market and consumer research, and make and informed buying decision, there should be no restrictions.

So what's this got to do with Prostitution?

To understand that, we need to agree on what Prostitution is. Fortunately, we already have an agreement. It's called "English." We communicate because we all agree on certain standard meanings for words, and if we have a disagreement, we check the authoritative source listing the standards. It's called a "Dictionary." Granted, with the advent of "spell checking," many of these dictionaries haven't been opened in years, but believe it or not, dictionaries do more than just help with diction and more than just help with spelling. The words have standard meanings. Prostitution is defined by "Webster's Ninth Collegiate" as "the act or practice of indulging in promiscuous sexual relations esp. for money." Sex for money.

So why is that bad? Well, one can assume that it's bad either because sex is bad or making money is bad.

For the following discussion, let's assume the standard "guy paying the girl for sex" scenario. If we took away the money aspect, would it be okay? Is it okay to have sex if money doesn't change hands? Or is it the amount of money involved? The hundred or two hundred (whatever the going rate is) may be too small. When a guy marries a girl, he turns over all of his paychecks for the rest of his life for what amounts to a season pass. Is the current "pay per view" of prostitution too cost effective, or is it too expensive. Shouldn't that fall under a "caveat emptor?"

Or is it the sex that's bad? If prostitution is bad because sex is bad, why do we have sex so often? Perhaps it's the sex that should be outlawed.

Or is it the lack of love in the exchange? Should having sex without love be made illegal? Wouldn't that affect many married couples as well? How do you determine if love is involved? Would it be okay if the guy and the prostitute each said "I love you" before exchanging either money or bodily fluids?

I've seen it suggested elsewhere that there's a bigger issue concerning the subjugation of women. There are some who feel that a woman should not have control over her own body. When married, she becomes the property of the husband. When she's not married, ownership becomes a tad more iffy. Perhaps feudalism is making a comeback.

I, for one, don't understand why prostitution is illegal. It goes against my inner capitalist.

Commentary: 51%

I guess I need a few things explained to me. I keep hearing, from the Republican side of things, how the Democrats are blocking anything from getting done. The country has all these problems, but they can't get fixed because of the Democrats. Statements like that confuse me.

We have a governmental harmonic convergence more rare than the planets lining up. The Republicans have seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices where the so-called "swing vote" was a Republican. The Executive branch is filled to the gills with Republicans and led by one who is apparently unable to even spell the word "veto." The Republicans have a majority in not only the Senate, but the House. In theory, they should be able to do anything they want and the Democrats can't do a thing about it. All they need is 51%. That 2/3 stuff only kicks in when there's a V-E-T-O.

So how can the Democrats "block" anything?

But let's assume for a moment they can. Let's also assume that by the end of election year 2006, through some miracle or disaster (you decide), the Democrats have the majority of the House and Senate. "Majority" means basically "51% or more." What this means is that the roles have changed. Doesn't this also mean that the Republicans will now be able to block the Democrats from doing anything? Won't the same tools, if such tools exist, be available to the Republicans?

If all this is true, then it seems that the minority party can effectively keep the majority party from getting anything done. This means that Congress, both Houses, is totally ineffectual. Perhaps the best solution is to get rid of Congress altogether. Granted, we'll lose one of the Checks and Balances to the government, but since they haven't done a whole lot of checking and balancing of late, we won't miss them. Think of the taxes we'd save. And on the brighter side, the Lobbyists won't have anyone to bribe, and will therefore be worthless, and the companies that employ them will fire them and could pass the savings on to their customers.

Hm. Less taxes and cheaper goods and services. Does anyone see a down side to this?

Commentary: Legislating Morality

One of the discussion points we see cropping up every so often is about whether or not we should be legislating morality. To some it seems unambiguously clear that we should, and to others just the opposite. On the one extreme, we have religious zealots who feel that their beliefs are God's beliefs, are laid out in Holy Scripture, are therefore the "definitive" morality, and ergo there is no problem to legislate it. Muslim Sharia law, or many of the "blue laws" of Utah or the Deep South are examples of this. On the other extreme, we have the cultural relativists who feel that each culture defines its own morality, and all moralities are equally valid.

Have I mentioned how I hate extremism?

One of the examples use for supporting the concept that morality can be legislated is the thing we all are supposed to agree upon, that murder is bad (bad=immoral) and that it's a good thing that it's against the law. We can't even agree upon that. Among the so-called civilized western nations, there is a huge discrepancy about the subject of state-sponsored murder. And yes, I'm using the word "murder" rather than "executions" merely to rattle some cages. I'll rattle the others later.

The problem, as I see it, is a lack of communication. I do not subscribe to any religions dogma, and I do not subscribe to the concept that what other cultures do is okay, yet I believe that there is a basic, universal morality that can safely be legislated. Perhaps all I'm doing is creating yet another cultish or culturally specific schema, based upon a cult or culture of one.

This "morality" of mine can be expressed in four, very simple words: Do not hurt others. I'll expand it a bit when I extend it to legislation: If an action hurts another (physically, monetarily, possessionally) it should be illegal. This would not apply to seeking restitution of one who has already violated the morality. A quick example, taking money from someone is an act of "hurting" and should be illegal, but taking stolen money back is an act of restitution and is not. A seeming "exception" to this basic morality can be explained by the concept of "informed, uncoerced consent." In that example, then, it's okay for a person to take money if it's given freely.

If we think about it, we would realize were we to apply this template to our current laws, most of them would remain unchanged. A few would be dumped. The dumpees would be the pet laws of the extremists.

Notice this "morality" does not apply to individuals themselves. This means that people have the right, unfettered by laws, to be stupid. They have the right to populate the Darwin Award rolls. That means that if we, as a culture, understand that coffee is hot, and that the corporation selling the coffee informs a customer that the coffee is hot, that the individual has the right to spill this coffee in their lap, but not to shift responsibility of that act to the corporation. In other words, many of our frivolous lawsuits should disappear.

You think?

Nawwwww.

Commentary: 1984 Revisited

I read George Orwell's 1984 back when I was in high school. This was in the mid-Sixties so the time setting of the book was still almost two decades off. Back then it was considered a cautionary tale about how society could devolve into a distopia. I suppose it would be considered so now, even though the year in question has come and gone. Somehow, the images of Big Brother, the Thought Police, the Hate Rallies, and rewriting history and pretending it had always been so, stick with us and have invaded our everyday speech.

Back then, I used to tell people how we were on track to 1984. We don't rewrite history, they'd say. We just changed all the clocks an hour an now we pretend the time has always been this way. We don't have hate rallies, they'd say. We're playing our cross-town rivals this weekend and our rally is scheduled at 10:00 this morning. You're wearing a button that says "Drop dead, Little Red" (the other high school's colors were red and white).

You get the picture.

I was reminded of all this over the weekend, when once again the world plunged into madness and changed all their clocks. Now, instead of getting up at 3:00 a.m. to go to work, I get up at 2:00 a.m. Thanks world. I don't even understand how anyone is "saving" an hour of daylight. All they've done is chop it off the morning and scotch tape it to the evening.

As I thought about how I used to tease my friends in school about being tools of Big Brother, I thought about what's happening today. When I pondered the Thought Police, I was reminded of the NSA and the illegal wire-tapping that is probably still going on. I thought about Rush Limbaugh telling his listeners that HE is "the only news they need to listen to." I thought about Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter preaching hatred of the Left. I thought about Randi Rhodes and Al Franken preaching hatred of the Right. I thought about the FCC, chartered to keep the RF signals and interference under control, with controlling content instead.

I thought about how congress and state senates keep trying to legislate people from being stupid. Rewrite history? In late 2002 we were all supposed to believe Iraq had WMD. Now we're supposed to believe they didn't. In the Fifties and Sixties Red China was our enemy. Now Red China is our friend and business partner, and we no longer call them "Red." Are they no longer Communists?

Hate rallies? Just tune into any talk radio and you'll get your own, personal hate rally. But if you want something official, you get two to choose from. We call them the DNC and the RNC. To invoke another Orwellian image, we need to remember although the ruling oligarchy of animals was evil, the farmers they threw off the land were equally as evil. If really doesn't matter whether you're in lock-step with one political ideology or goose-stepping with the other. As long as you succumb to the political and religious Thought Police, you're in the thrall of Big Brother.

I wonder if there's a Blog Police.