Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Boojatta

(12,231 posts)
Tue Jan 10, 2012, 07:54 PM Jan 2012

Is the slogan "consenting adults" an adequate foundation for all economic regulation?

Last edited Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:42 PM - Edit history (6)

Radical free market enthusiasts combine their "consenting adults" criterion with a focus on economic activity. It doesn't seem to matter what the economic activity is. Some people regret that "mission accomplished" no longer refers to European governments winning a war to ensure that Europeans can sell opium in China. After all, provided that in each case the seller and buyer of the opium were consenting adults, the "consenting adults" criterion isn't violated. It's possible to argue that the Opium War was necessary to "liberate" China.

Other people regret that part of history, but have persuaded themselves that if a prostitute and potential customer are both adults and both consent to a prostitution transaction then it is unjust for any government to interfere with their transaction.

Suppose that a developer has enough money to buy some farmland or other undeveloped land, and to pay an architect to design, and a general contractor to manage, a building project for the land.

Now, consider some questions:

Should they be at all constrained in deciding how wide or narrow the streets will be? Should the buildings meet any particular standards to reduce the risk of fire, or to reduce the odds that fires will cause great harm when they occur? Do the buildings need to be designed and built to withstand earthquakes? Many more such questions could be asked.

Interestingly, the "consenting adults" criterion suggests that the answer to all of the above questions is "no." After all, both the developer and the general contractor are likely to be adults. Provided that they both consent, they can build whatever they like. If "consenting adults" is our criterion for what should be legal, then the law has nothing to say here. The only constraint is a pragmatic one: can the developer get financing, find suckers who will buy the properties, and make a profit?

A question remains: why should we believe that the historical experience of humanity can simply be ignored with impunity and replaced with the simple "consenting adults" criterion?

For example,


Fire was used in ancient buildings for heat, light and cooking. Early cities were densely populated for security reasons, often individual dwellings shared common walls; typical roofs were thatched. Early chimneys were often short with a fairly large opening and allowed embers to travel to neighboring dwellings and set the thatched roof on fire. A fire in early cities often resulted in the destruction of the entire city since early firefighting equipment and methods were primitive and ineffective. After Rome burned several times, a night patrol of slaves called a “vigile” was organized to alert a neighborhood in event of a fire. This Latin word was the basis for our words vigil and vigilante.

The French and English established an hour by which all fires had to be extinguished; it came to be known as the curfew (taken from words meaning “cover fire”). Early London, including the original London Bridge, burned several times. London suffered a major fire in 1212 with over 3,000 people killed; afterward, thatch roofing and wooden chimneys were restricted. Early English arson punishments included being burned alive or dragged to death. Moscow suffered a 1571 fire which killed approximately 200,000 people and 90% of the city (30,000 homes) was burned again in 1812 prior to occupation by Napoleon.

The Great Fire of London in 1666 burned for five days; destroyed 13,000 homes (2/3 of the city) and left over 200,000 people homeless. The fire occurred after a summer-long drought and was spread by high winds. The first fire insurance companies and first fire departments were founded after this fire. This fire led to the first requirements for the use of fire pumps (fed by bucket brigades), fire insurance and ladders for fire suppression/rescue. New building laws, passed after the fire, prevented use of timber, mandated brick or stone construction and greatly widened streets.

The quoted material above is from:

Large Building Fires and Subsequent Code Changes

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/member%20sections/aebocodechanges.pdf


13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

eridani

(51,907 posts)
1. This is mainly a city thing, though
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 08:23 AM
Jan 2012

If your nearest neighbor is 10 miles away, why would you care how he wires his house? If it burns, too bad, and next time do it right or hire someone to do it right. If your nearest neighbor is ten feet away, how he builds his house becomes your business too.

 

Boojatta

(12,231 posts)
5. I'm sure that you can think of many problematic scenarios if you try.
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:15 PM
Jan 2012

I'll get you started with a few:

What if you work in your neighbor's house as a nanny? You might become trapped in a house that's on fire.

What if your neighbor has a tenant who works for you and performs an important function? Your employee might become temporarily or permanently unable to do the work.

What if in your neighbor's home there are some materials that, when burned, produce airborne and highly toxic substances?

eridani

(51,907 posts)
9. Yes, but people who live in rural areas just see distances
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 10:23 PM
Jan 2012

That's why building codes are usually much looser there.

 

Boojatta

(12,231 posts)
6. In the case of prostitution, a customer might be
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:27 PM
Jan 2012

violating marriage vows, just as somebody who rents a musical instrument and then sells it to a pawn shop is violating the rental agreement. This kind of thing happens, and the only practical way to deal with it is to impose special regulations on pawn shops.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
11. But the average distance between neighbors in rural America is closer to 10 feet than 10 miles
Thu Jan 12, 2012, 11:44 PM
Jan 2012

The average size of a farm in 2007 is 418 acres, or less then 3/5 of a mile across. Only 3.7 % of all farms are over 2000 acres, or less then 3 miles across. Thus in most of Rural America we are talking about a 1 or less between homes (and in most of Rural American, most people live on small lots or in small towns and commute to work on the larger farms, thus higher population then the mere number of farms per square mile would indicate).

People have little understanding of distance, for example a typical eastern County (I.e. East of the Rocky Mountains) is only 20 miles square. In the Mountains of the American West and Alaska you can have tens of miles between homes, but then in such places almost all of the land is US Government owned.

Furthermore even in such places, a fire starts in a home miles from someone else, but it spread to the nearby forest and becomes a major forest fires that can go hundreds of square miles, burning hundreds of homes that are tens of miles away from each other.

Sorry, proper home constructions helps even in Rural Area. The main reason we have the perception that such incidents occur less in rural America is the result of two factors:

First, it is easier to report of a major fire in a major city then in a rural area, Given the number of people in a city you can have the same number of fire as in the rural areas, but it is reported more often for the fire location is easy to get to by more news team then the fires in rural locations.

Second, The rate of fire PER HOME and PER PERSON is about the same in rural or urban America (in fact I heard it is LESS in Urban America do to sticker enforcement of fire codes), but five fire in New York City makes New York City sound like a fire hazard, while the same number of fires per the same number of homes and people in Rural America are dismissed as individual fires in five different Communities.

Furthermore the need for fire and other safety codes is actually stronger in Rural America than in Urban America, Urban America generally has ready access to fire and emergency teams, while Rural America may have to wait hours for less equipped fire and safety teams (And this is one of the reasons rural forest fires get out of hand so quickly, in urban areas the Fire Department put out such fires before the fire become uncontrollable, but in rural areas fire departments often do not arrive till long after the fire is out of control).

TalkingDog

(9,001 posts)
3. You are creating a false analogy.
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:53 AM
Jan 2012

There is a difference between decriminalizing and legalizing.

Building codes are in place to account for the safety of the greatest number of people.

Legalizing prostitution would find the profession held to the same standards of safety (hopefully)

If your analogy were to be equivalent, it would be the decriminalization of prostitution and the "de-legalization" of building code standards. So that neither has legally binding or actionable restrictions nor are they illegal.


I happen to think both should be legal and regulated. For the reasons stated above: Namely the safety of the greatest number of people.

 

Boojatta

(12,231 posts)
4. My intention wasn't to create an analogy.
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:07 PM
Jan 2012

Whatever analogy you have in mind might be good or bad, but it's not something of interest to me.

However, the fault is mine, not yours. I didn't select a very good thread title, and I knew that it was problematic, but at first I failed to see exactly where the problem was, so I wasn't able to progress beyond the point of diagnosis to remedy.

Let's begin again.

Forget about the original thread title, and ask yourself this question:

What motivates some people to say that "consenting adults" is big enough and strong enough to be the foundation for any and all regulation of prostitution?

Next question:
Are people willing to accept a bigger and more complicated foundation for regulating the professional activities of real estate developers, architects, general contractors, etc?

The third question: If there's a difference in the size, solidity, and complexity of the foundations, then what accounts for the difference?

My guess: the sex drive is stronger than the drive to do architecture and real estate development. Some people will accept complicated, technical regulation in the areas of architecture and real estate development, but insist that nothing more complicated than a brief slogan is acceptable as the basis for regulating sexual activity.

 

Boojatta

(12,231 posts)
7. You are, of course, correct that decriminalizing prostitution ...
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 02:38 PM
Jan 2012

does not necessarily imply leaving it completely unregulated. If you don't believe that the slogan "consenting adults" justifies leaving prostitution unregulated, then I suppose that this thread is not addressed to you.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
12. Most laws making prostitution illegal in the 1800s was to control the spread of VDs.
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 01:34 AM
Jan 2012

When prostitution was legal in most of the US, you had a high rate of Syphilis (On the HMS Bounty trip to Tahiti, the Bounty landed at Capetown for provisions and Captain Bligh checked out his crew for Syphilis before he left them ashore, Richard Christian was one of the men he inspected and reported he no longer had Syphilis, i.e. it was in remission) and Gonorrhea (Historians can trace the path of Lewis and Clark Expedition by the existence of Mercury, mercury was used to treat, nor cure, the affect of Syphilis on a man's penis when he pissed). Lincoln was reported by his Law Partner to have had syphilis, attributing some of Lincoln's idiosyncrasies to the Syphilis (Lincoln's son tried to have Lincoln's widow committed in the 1870s for what was considered even then Syphilis insanity, Hitler, Stalin and Lenin are considered by many historians to suffer Syphilis (Sulfa Drugs were usable against Syphilis starting about 1912, but only if treated in the first three months of having the disease, it took that long for Syphilis to penetrate the water barrier around the brain. Once the brain was affected, Syphilis could NOT be cured by Sulfa drugs or even Penicillin and thus was incurable till tetracycline was introduced in the 1950s. Tetracycline could penetrate the water barrier around the brain and kill off any Syphilis in the brain).

Syphilis and Gonorrhea were "common" diseases and various efforts were put into place to control the spread of both diseases. In the mid 1800s it became the practice in most cities to test known prostitutes for both diseases. The problem became what to do with them if they came down with either disease. Most women in that profession are NOT it is because they like it, but they need the money, thus telling the women to get out of the profession did not work. Furthermore how do you test women for the disease if they do NOT want to be tested? In a free society such testing is not possible, just think about AIDS today, do we test people walking down the street? No, people will not co-operate and when they do they still hate the process.

Now, when the push for banning prostitution became the norm in the US, what we would call regulations did not exist. It was a period of self regulation. The Courts were hostile to any regulation deeming regulations as a denial of the right to Contract as guarantee under the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court even ruled it unconstitutional to regulate how long a man should work with out a brake. If a man wanted to work 72 hours straight, he had the Constitutionalism right to do so even if he would endanger others by doing so.

The Court were a little more generous when it came to women and children, the state could do SOME regulations of how long they could work, but not a complete ban (as to Women) and only to a limited degree when it came to children. Furthermore the law permitted parents to "emancipate" their children at almost any age, so it was possible for a 10 year old to be "emancipated" by her parents and sold to a house of prostitution. That ten year old could be forced to stay in that place till her debt was paid (Which was almost never). The Court would say, since prostitution was legal, that was a valid contract and that emancipated child was bound by that contract.

Given this legal background, it quickly became apparent the only good way to regulate prostitution was to make it illegal. Thus ANY contract to perform acts of Prostitution was unenforceable. The Courts did agree that the State and Local Government had the power to make things illegal, even if the courts would enforce contracts for the same acts if the acts were legal.

Furthermore health concern became more and more a concern of Americans, including the spread of disease (The Common Cup, still seen in old western Movies was one of the first thing banned, for it spread disease from one person to another, the paper cup was adopted to prevent such spread of disease, and where glasses were used they had to be washed in hot water between use).

When it came to prostitution, catching people with Syphilis and Gonorrhea quickly became what health providers tired to catch so to stop the spread of both diseases. The problem was the above laws, you could not to the equivalent of getting the City to throw away the common cup and replace it with paper when it came to Syphilis and Gonorrhea. You had to check the people who had each disease, find out who they had sex with and test all of them. The problem was the above concept of "Freedom of Contract", how do you get around the then enforced Constitutional right to contract to do a sex act AND require such a person to be tested for Syphilis and Gonorrhea?

The answer was found, to make prostitution illegal. No one expected prostitution to go away by making it illegal, but you could arrests people who engaged in prostitution and as part of the process for the arrest test them for Syphilis and Gonorrhea. Thus the main thrust of making prostitution illegal was that it permitted the health department ever so often round up the prostitutes for testing using the fact that prostitution was illegal. If the prostitutes tested positive you could declare them a health hazard and put them away in a "hospital" (After the invention of the Sulfa Drugs, give then a dose of Sulfa Drugs).

Now, it soon became clear that such hospitalization was to expensive so cities started to reduce funding for such hospitals and thus releasing the women with a warning NOT to go back into prostitution for they would be spreading the disease they had as while as doing what was illegal. The law was also used to make sure such prostitutes only practice their trade were the least people complained about them. After a while this became the main thrust, for that is what most City Fathers wanted, but the start of the ban and its long life has always been tied in with health concerns.

Now, one thing that pushed for such treatment was that most cities and states had to maintain hospitals for the insane, and one of the main causes of insanity was Syphilis.

This desire to minimize costs was helped by the introduction of Sulfa Drugs around 1912. Sulfa could cure Syphilis (if caught within three months of getting Syphilis) and Gonorrhea. Thus the push to make Prostitution illegal so every so often the Police could round them up and test them. If the prostitute would test positive after 1912 give them a doze of Sulfa drugs so to minimzie the spread of Gonorrhea and Syphilis.

Lets remember the late 1800s, most people LOST income between 1865 and 1900, it was a great period of deflation. Wages dropped, prices from crop dropped etc. It was a hard time to live, and given the refusal to tax the rich most cities had a problem raising revenue to pay for roads (Most were still dirt even in most cities in 1900) let alone testing for Syphilis and Gonorrhea. Thus the health concern became a secondary concern as opposed to making sure the Prostitutes would stay out of certain neighborhoods, but it always remained for the States and the Federal Government, during and after WWI, tried to reduce the rate of inflection by Syphilis and Gonorrhea.

The coming of WWI, the Army saw a huge jump in the rate of its solders getting Syphilis and Gonorrhea (And the fact it was a Court Marital Offence to get either disease AND a lost of three months pay to pay for the Sulfa Drugs did not seem to have any affect on the rate in infection). Thus the US Government started to put pressure on areas where such disease were common to do something about the spread of such diseases and the best way to reduce the spread was to make prostitution illegal mostly as a cover to test such prosecutes, but after a while just an excuse to remove them from anywhere they could be seen. By 1920 every major city had made prostitution illegal, every state but Nevada (Which at that time had no major Military Bases, but Reno and Las Vegas made prostitution illegal as would any county that wanted a military base in WWII, the US Army and Air Force would NOT build a base in a county where prostitution was "legal&quot .

That this remain a HEALTH issue can be seen in a story My Father liked telling. In 1941 when he and some of the men in his squad was on maneuvers in Georgia. Their truck broke down and they had to wait for a tow. While waiting a woman came up to them and told them for $10 she have sex with them, $5 for the room in the bar, $5 for her. My Father told me you could see the Syphilis tracks on her and thus he wanted no part of her but he had nothing to do so he started to negotiate over the price. My father said he had heard that she was so known for spreading Syphilis that the whole Third Army was looking for her, she had affected that many men she was a walking health hazard. Now, my Father was a jerk and asked if they could do it out by the tree for $5 and cut out the rent for the room in the Bar/Hotel the truck was broke down by. She kept saying she needed the room so it would be $5 for the Room and $5 for her. He kept saying he only wanted to spend $5 (and had no intention of ever having sex with her). The scary part was at least two of the men from his squad ask him to lend them the $10 so they could have sex with the woman (My father was the only one in the truck that had any money and he was NOT going to waste it on her). He told them NO, and in private told them can you NOT see she is loaded with Syphilis?

Now, this was 1941 and if someone came down with either disease, it was still a court marital and a three month loss of pay (I believed this was changed in 1942). This loss of pay was driven home to the troops in an effort to get them NOT to see the local prostitutes but it had almost no effect.

The main aide affect of that loss of pay was that men who came down with either disease would steal the Sulfa Pills that came in the first aid kit of the time period. Men with either disease would take out the sulfa pills from every man in their unit first aid kits then risk being found to have Syphilis or Gonorrhea (i.e. avoid the three month loss of pay). My Father remember waking up in the field, checking his field gear and seeing the Sulfa Pills gone, and then complaining who came down with the clap.

I bring this up, for Sexually Treatment disease was a problem during the 1800s, less of a problem with the discovery of Sulfa Drugs in 1912 and Penicillin during WWII. With the Sulfa Drugs and later Penicillin a full push was made to eliminate both diseases in the US. Illegality of prostitution permitted testing of anyone in the sex business on a constant basis. Thus once either disease entered either profession it was quickly discovered and suppressed.

The US was on its way to eliminating Syphilis in the late 1950s when the 1958 recession hit (the worse Recession between the Great Depression and Reagan's Recession of 82-82). That recession lead congress to cut back on the funding on the project to eliminate syphilis (Which was compounded by State's Cuts in the same area of public health). This permitted Syphilis to explode, until the 1980s when much of the testing done to detect AIDS would also reveal Syphilis infection and lead to a steady drop in Syphilis cases in the US.

Now Public Health was the main reason prostitution was made illegal, but as you can tell no one expected prostitution to end just because it was illegal, it was deemed the best way to regulate the spread of sexually transmitted disease given the nature of the profession on its lower ends (I am NOT concerned about "high end" call girls, and it should be noted most law and health professionals are not). The Lower end prostitute, the "Crack Whore" is the concern, for such a person will care less about herself AND anyone she has sex with, such a prostitute in only concerned about her drug addition. The problem is how do you regulate these low end professionals if prostitution was legal? These are NOT the type of person who will comply with any requirements for testing or using a condom and any money they get is used to buy the drugs they are addicted to. Sorry, keeping prostitution illegal is the best way to regulate the low end professionals of that profession.

mbperrin

(7,672 posts)
8. Faulty assumption underlying consent is that both parties have total information about every
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 06:39 PM
Jan 2012

aspect of every transaction and are completely rational.

Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
10. No
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:20 PM
Jan 2012

We live too interdependently for that to be true.

Theoretically, I may have the right to take out a negative amortization mortgage if I can find a borrower dumb enough to give me one, but if the practice becomes widespread everyone suffers, so in fact we must regulate many of these decisions.

We carve out certain exemptions for very private things, like religion, sex, contraception and so forth because otherwise we would find ourselves living in a hell of good intentions, but really those things tend to affect more than just the individual, economically speaking.

If I really want to live it up and sleep with a hundred people and don't much care about safe sex (and maybe even if I do), the fact is sooner or later my medical bills will seep through to everyone else. Economically, our choices have large impacts even if it is just about whether we live from check to check.

I suppose theoretically a few of us could move to Antarctica and not bother the rest, but the vast majority of people are living in a very interrelated world in which our activities and problems affect other people more than we might want to admit.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Economy»Is the slogan "conse...