Only slightly more absurd than the "fundamental right" to wireless internet access is the claim to publicly funded prostitution. Aside from the moral issues, this should serve as an example of why it's important to limit the role of government.
A disabled Danish man is fighting for the state to pay for him to have a prostitute visit him at home.Torben Hansen, who has cerebral palsy, which severely affects his speech and mobility, believes his local authority should pay the extra charge he incurs when he hires a sex worker - because his disability means he cannot go to see them. His case is currently being considered.
In Denmark, local authorities compensate disabled people for extra costs incurred because of their disability.
"I want them to cover the extra expenses for the prostitutes to get here, because it's a lot more expensive getting them to come to my home rather than me going to a brothel," Mr Hansen told BBC World Service's Outlook programme.
"It's a necessity for me. I can't move very well, and it's impossible for me to go there."
Prostitution isn't illegal in Denmark, so if the public funds other expenses, why not house call girls? One politician appears to appreciate the conundrum.
Kristen Brosboel, a Social Democrat member of the Danish Parliament, is among those who have argued against Mr Hansen."Obviously I recognise that he has a problem that people without a disability may not have - but I disagree with the fact that we should support his visits with a prostitute with tax money," she told Outlook.
"We also spend tax money on trying to prevent prostitution, helping women out of prostitution - and we have a clear policy that this is a social problem that we want to solve.
"So I think that's very much in contradiction with spending tax money on requiring prostitutes."
When the public funds everything, contradictions are inevitable. The only solution is to limit the scope of government. The real problem in Denmark is that the public already pays for so much, how can anyone say no?
That is something new. I can't wait for the ACLU to being arguing that this should be done here.
IC: An overreaction on your part, but by all means, please hold your breath as you wait for that to happen.
Prostitution is illegal. The most the ACLU would argue is against its illegality... not that it should be publicly funded.
"The most the ACLU would argue is that it should be legal... not that it should be publicly funded."
.. is what I meant to say.
This is not very compassionate, but...
EEEEEWWWWWWWWWW
In 1970, New York (followed by Alaska, Hawaii and Washington) introduced the first laws to allow abortion "on demand." Then a couple years later, we had Roe v. Wade open the abortion floodgates across the country. The gov't has used tax dollars to pay for abortions.
Prostitution is legal in some parts of Nevada. Like abortion, the ACLU will try to use undemocratic means to get prostitution legalized across the country by getting the Supreme Court's blessing.
Abortion started out like prostitution. Some states legalized it while others did not. Federalism be damned, Leftist groups used the judicial system as opposed to the legislative system to get abortion legalized. These same Leftist groups will eventually try to get the gov't to fund prostitution, after it is legalized, for "needy" citizens and the Democrats would most likely be in favor of it.
Who could resist voting for the Democrats if their source of free sex could potentially be threatened by (true)fiscal conservative Republicans?
r80: And, in spite of abortion being legal, abortion rates have been dropping over the last 10 years. What does that indicate? It indicates that the government doesn't have to get involved for abortions to become more and more rare. As more of a Libertarian than a Liberal, I'm generally opposed to using government where and when it is unnecessary and ineffective. Abortion, like drug abuse, is an area where laws and acts of government are quite ineffective.
Federalism is a nice concept. There are times when we are 50 states and there are times when we're one nation. Social conservatives want to use the law and, as an enforcer, government power to impose their sense of morality onto everyone. Fiscal liberals want to use the law and government power to impose their sense of what "good government bureaucracy" is onto everyone. Most everyone else fits somewhere in between.
Unless you can come up with some specific examples of arguments brought by the ACLU to the courts that prostitution should be legal, your claim that they "will" do as you suggest is without merit. Ditto that for your claims of what "Leftist groups will eventually" do.
I consider myself a Reaganite libertarian. As a Reaganite, I lean towards abolishing abortion completely, but the libertarian in me can live with the legality of abortion just as long as I keep telling myself that it is everyone's choice to choose between going to heaven or burning in hell. I also wouldn't mind ending the failed "War on Drugs" and converting DEA agents into border agents instead.
"Unless you can come up with some specific examples of arguments brought by the ACLU to the courts that prostitution should be legal, your claim that they 'will' do as you suggest is without merit. Ditto that for your claims of what 'Leftist groups will eventually' do."
Unfortunately, I didn't find anything about ACLU lawsuits for the legalization of prostitution with my Google search, so you got me on that one. However, you were wrong about the nature of the ACLU when you said:
"The most the ACLU would argue is that it should be legal... not that it should be publicly funded."
http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=14494&c=146
[Moving to protect the health of low-income women across Georgia, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit today on behalf of several clinics in the state, arguing that the denial of Medicaid coverage for medically necessary abortions threatens women’s health and violates their rights.]
If the ACLU wants abortion to be funded by the gov't, what would make me think they wouldn't eventually make a similar case for prostitution? Give it time, the ACLU could surprise you, but not me.
r80: You should note that when I said that the ACLU would only argue for "it" to be legal, the "it" was prostitution... not abortion.
r80 said: "If the ACLU wants abortion to be funded by the gov't, what would make me think they wouldn't eventually make a similar case for prostitution? Give it time, the ACLU could surprise you, but not me."
Abortion and prostitution are two different issues... and public attitudes towards both are also different. The argument by the ACLU for Medicaid coverage of medically-necessary abortions does not translate into an effective argument for the funding of prostitution by the government.
Mark: I think legal prostitution is far less morally repugnant than legal abortion. Further, why should reducing abortion be an area in which government should not be used, but reducing murder is an appropriate area for government intervention? There are still plenty of murders, just as there would still be some number of abortions even if they were illegal. But it's totally unreasonable to argue that outlawing abortion wouldn't vastly reduce the number of abortions, unless you want to completely discard economic theories of incentive and such... which are pretty important to libertarians.
MW: The economy plays a greater role in determining the rates of many things, including abortions, drug use, murder (and crime in general), and prostitution than legality or illegality.
As far as abortion specifically, when a majority of the American people want it to remain legal... making it illegal isn't too likely to have as great of an impact on reducing the number of abortions as illegality does on issues as speeding, etc.
The extent that government should be involved in reducing abortions is in providing the economic incentives that will, in the end, do a lot more to reduce the number of abortions than a flat declaration of illegality.
Mark: Making something illegal, such as drugs or prostitution, raises the cost. Higher cost, less demand. One of the key ways they judge the effectiveness of anti-drug prosecutions is by the street price of the drug, the higher the better.
MW: Simple supply-and-demand doesn't always work, though... and drugs, prostitution, crime, and abortion are just some of the examples of where it doesn't always work.
Raising the cost doesn't always or necessarily lower demand.
Mark: Some goods are more elastic than others, true, but all markets respond to price to a greater or lesser degree.
MW: And sometimes instead of cost affecting demand, demand affects cost.
Reducing the number of abortions is something that's been happening for more than 10 years, which suggests that what we've been doing: improving the economy, educating people, offering and emphasizing choices to mothers other than abortion, etc. are all effective tools that we should use. It's the best way a government can act. In the zeal by some to eliminate abortions immediately, what they may lose sight of is how social change really works: gradually, over many years.
Additionally...
Immediate and unpopular change, especially when forced by the government, is almost always subject to an equal and opposite reaction.
The best way to handle this is let what we're already doing continue to work.