NationStates Jolt Archive

Because I'm nice like that. ;)

First of all some comments on the Bill itself.


1. DECLARES prostitution legal throughout the UN: any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute,

This is non-negotiable. If you're in the UN prostitution is legal within your country. Period. Don't claim it isn't. People will just point and laugh at the funny delegate.

2. EMPHASIZES that legalizing prostitution must coincide with regulation from the government, such as health and safety and other employment legislation, just like any other profession,

Again, this is non-negotiable. Note that it mandates you to produce regulation. As long as it's either health and safety or other employment legislation you're entirely covered.

3. RECOMMENDS nations that want to limit prostitution to tackle the issue by its roots and create education and social programs that will give more choice to people who might want to become a prostitute,

Note this is a recommendation. It doesn't mandate you to do anything.

4. REQUESTS all nations to stimulate a clean and attractive working environment for prostitutes, and advises cooperation with the sex industry to renovate old "illegal" prostitution areas in towns and cities,

Ditto. It's a request. Not a mandate. It's not compulsory for you to follow a request.

Now some specific ideas for those of you looking to bypass the bill's effects on your nation. (In order from least radical to most radical).

1. Declare (as a health and safety bill) that the sex industry is financially responsible for any and all social problems related, even periphally from prostitution.

2. Declare prostitution to be luxury goods as far as taxation is concerned. Impose a flat rate on luxury goods retailers. It may not get rid of prostitution. But it means that any prostitute will need the same kind of start up capital as a jewellers.

3. Require any industry with a significant level of health risk to require a permit from the goverment. Make it expensive. Introduce goverment subsidies for 'essential' industry.

4. Impose a flat 100% income tax on your entire population. For some reason we've found that people don't get involved in the sex industry if there is no money to be made.

5. Require prostitutes and/or their punters to wear a uniform at all times. This should not be seen as a punitive measure. Merely a way of promoting the industry and avoiding confusion. Like in a restaraunt which requires it's staff to wear a company shirt. Obviously, with the sex industry not being a nine to five job, it's entirely reasonable to insist its employees wear their uniform whenever in public.

None of this is expressly forbidden by the Bill in question. Honestly I despair of some of you sometimes, you spend so much time running round complaining about bills you don't like, you entirely forget to look for loopholes. :rolleyes:

OOC: I'm very tempted to have this as the start of a series. ;)

Thank you Holy Word. I'm just baffeled how the same populations can vote to repeal a bill, and then vote to recall it only a few weeks later. It just doesn't make sense.

Oh you're kidding.



Because I'm nice like that. ;)

First of all some comments on the Bill itself.


1. DECLARES prostitution legal throughout the UN: any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute,

This is non-negotiable. If you're in the UN prostitution is legal within your country. Period. Don't claim it isn't. People will just point and laugh at the funny delegate.

2. EMPHASIZES that legalizing prostitution must coincide with regulation from the government, such as health and safety and other employment legislation, just like any other profession,

Again, this is non-negotiable. Note that it mandates you to produce regulation. As long as it's either health and safety or other employment legislation you're entirely covered.

Right so far.



3. RECOMMENDS nations that want to limit prostitution to tackle the issue by its roots and create education and social programs that will give more choice to people who might want to become a prostitute,

Note this is a recommendation. It doesn't mandate you to do anything.

Yep, only intelligent goverments would do something proactive to aid the problem. The UN does not require you to be sensible.



4. REQUESTS all nations to stimulate a clean and attractive working environment for prostitutes, and advises cooperation with the sex industry to renovate old "illegal" prostitution areas in towns and cities,

Ditto. It's a request. Not a mandate. It's not compulsory for you to follow a request.

See above.



Now some specific ideas for those of you looking to bypass the bill's effects on your nation. (In order from least radical to most radical).

1. Declare (as a health and safety bill) that the sex industry is financially responsible for any and all social problems related, even periphally from prostitution.

:rolleyes: As there is no way to prove the industry itself is solely responsible, once again this is a "let me put my head in the sand and attempt to ignore the causes nyahnyahnyah I can't see it it doesn't exist" bit of fluff.



2. Declare prostitution to be luxury goods as far as taxation is concerned. Impose a flat rate on luxury goods retailers. It may not get rid of prostitution. But it means that any prostitute will need the same kind of start up capital as a jewellers.

Like hell. You just raise prices. Duh.

* makes notes "...lacks knowledge of business..." *



3. Require any industry with a significant level of health risk to require a permit from the goverment. Make it expensive. Introduce goverment subsidies for 'essential' industry.

"Gee, I think I'll force it back underground. That way I can have even higher STD rates and problems, and convince myself I'm doing the right thing".

:rolleyes:



4. Impose a flat 100% income tax on your entire population. For some reason we've found that people don't get involved in the sex industry if there is no money to be made.

False. See Communist USSR and "barter".



5. Require prostitutes and/or their punters to wear a uniform at all times. This should not be seen as a punitive measure. Merely a way of promoting the industry and avoiding confusion. Like in a restaraunt which requires it's staff to wear a company shirt. Obviously, with the sex industry not being a nine to five job, it's entirely reasonable to insist its employees wear their uniform whenever in public.

Silly, but what the hell, why break a streak?



None of this is expressly forbidden by the Bill in question. Honestly I despair of some of you sometimes, you spend so much time running round complaining about bills you don't like, you entirely forget to look for loopholes. :rolleyes:

OOC: I'm very tempted to have this as the start of a series. ;)

Vastiva has decided to make another sitcom out of those who think your way. Should be rather high on the ratings, people seem to like parodies and satire aimed at the... "less able".

The bill is quite poorly written. My problem isn't really with legal prostitution, rather with the sentiment of forcing prostitution down nations' throats rather than simply upholding the right of nations to determine their own rules vis-a-vis the sex industry. There are legitimate arguments for both sides of this issue. It would be much more in keeping with the role of an international organization (or really any opt-in organization) to leave this very contentious issue to individual nations and their citizens to decide.

That said, there are even easier ways around this resolution then were previously mentioned. For instance, the resolution decriminalizes the act of prostitution (the supply side) but does not have any language decriminalizing the consumption of prostitution (the demand side). You must allow people to offer prostitution services, but you can still arrest people who take them up on it. Alternatively, you might make hiring of a prostitute grounds for divorse and/or dismissal from certain professions where ones hasty choice to hire a prostitute (and possibly contact and STD) may affect more than themselves, from heath care workers to professional athletes.

The bill is quite poorly written. My problem isn't really with legal prostitution, rather with the sentiment of forcing prostitution down nations' throats rather than simply upholding the right of nations to determine their own rules vis-a-vis the sex industry. There are legitimate arguments for both sides of this issue. It would be much more in keeping with the role of an international organization (or really any opt-in organization) to leave this very contentious issue to individual nations and their citizens to decide.

The bill is quite well written.
It was the expressed intent of the writers to ram legalization of prostitution down the throats of nations that wanted to pretend it wouldn't exist if it were illegal.
It was also the expressed intent of the writers to leave enough wiggle room that countries could effectively keep it illegal on their own soil if they wanted, thus providing a boost to their neighbors' tourism industries.

Your problems with the resolution aren't based on a misunderstanding or poor choice of wording, but on a different view of what the NSUN should be doing, and a different view of what's immoral and inoffensive.



That said, there are even easier ways around this resolution then were previously mentioned. For instance, the resolution decriminalizes the act of prostitution (the supply side) but does not have any language decriminalizing the consumption of prostitution (the demand side). You must allow people to offer prostitution services, but you can still arrest people who take them up on it. Alternatively, you might make hiring of a prostitute grounds for divorse and/or dismissal from certain professions where ones hasty choice to hire a prostitute (and possibly contact and STD) may affect more than themselves, from heath care workers to professional athletes.
As I said above or on another thread: those would be evil things to do, but you're right - there's nothing in the game to stop you from claiming you've done all those things and kept your illegal prostitution industry alive.

The question is why you'd want to do that, unless you hate women and want to see more of them enslaved, killed, or just infected with AIDS.

Thank you Holy Word. I'm just baffeled how the same populations can vote to repeal a bill, and then vote to recall it only a few weeks later. It just doesn't make sense.
*ahem*

Thank you. I don't understand that one either. That's why I advised Groot to hold off for a while before submitting the replacement.

In fairness, this new resolution was much better written than the old one. Most of the arguments used to convince people to vote for the repeal have been addressed in the new one.

Lotsa luck finding excuses to repeal this one. Your best bet would be to wait a couple years until there's a new crop of active delegates who may have different opinions.

5. Require prostitutes and/or their punters to wear a uniform at all times. This should not be seen as a punitive measure. Merely a way of promoting the industry and avoiding confusion. Like in a restaraunt which requires it's staff to wear a company shirt. Obviously, with the sex industry not being a nine to five job, it's entirely reasonable to insist its employees wear their uniform whenever in public.

That would violate the freedom of expression. Governments can regulate a private institution as far as it can regulate its citizenry, meaning only as far as the human rights of others are abridged. Clothing does not abridge others' rights, so a government cannot mandate a uniform on its population.

Oppressed sex workers to emigrate to our Freeland.

Here they will only pay 28% tax like other workers, will have the same rights and freedoms as all our people.

We also invite Nations who encourage criminals to contact any still lurking in McGonagall for their prospective emigration and ruination of other economies.

Because I'm nice like that. ;)

Yes, very nice. I gather that you liked the debate so much, you would like to see another resolution to tighten it up a bit? I don't know whether that will pass - this resolution passed because it respected national sovereignity more than the previous I think - but do we really want to debate this *again*?

2. EMPHASIZES that legalizing prostitution must coincide with regulation from the government, such as health and safety and other employment legislation, just like any other profession,

Again, this is non-negotiable. Note that it mandates you to produce regulation. As long as it's either health and safety or other employment legislation you're entirely covered.

It basically tells you to treat it like other professions, which usually have regulation. If there isn't, you'll have to produce it, but otherwise the existing legislation can apply to prostitution.

It's not compulsory for you to follow a request.

You'll want to, though.

Now some specific ideas for those of you looking to bypass the bill's effects on your nation. (In order from least radical to most radical).

1. Declare (as a health and safety bill) that the sex industry is financially responsible for any and all social problems related, even periphally from prostitution.

Interesting court case. How do you prove that problems arise from prostitution? It's easy to point out that the problems arise from your government's social policies.

2. Declare prostitution to be luxury goods as far as taxation is concerned. Impose a flat rate on luxury goods retailers. It may not get rid of prostitution. But it means that any prostitute will need the same kind of start up capital as a jewellers.

You regulate all this by law? Wow, you must have an impressive administration...Banks can see how much start up capital a business needs, no government needs to say that. But in any case, as a side effect you could make things more difficult for other businesses, which is bad for your economy. Luxury goods have a high added value after all.

3. Require any industry with a significant level of health risk to require a permit from the goverment. Make it expensive. Introduce goverment subsidies for 'essential' industry.

You can't discriminate, as far as I recall. Now, there's nothing wrong with a permit. You can use that to oblige condom use, for example, which is safe practice. You can't "make it expensive" without making other businesses expensive too that easy. And if you would, the whole thing would go underground, leading to the same problems as before legalization. Making it expensive will be expensive for you, the government.

4. Impose a flat 100% income tax on your entire population. For some reason we've found that people don't get involved in the sex industry if there is no money to be made.

Absolutely wrong. Prostitution *happens*, it doesn't depend on money or income.

5. Require prostitutes and/or their punters to wear a uniform at all times. This should not be seen as a punitive measure. Merely a way of promoting the industry and avoiding confusion. Like in a restaraunt which requires it's staff to wear a company shirt. Obviously, with the sex industry not being a nine to five job, it's entirely reasonable to insist its employees wear their uniform whenever in public.

Unless you have some very silly laws (possibly breaking UN laws), you can't allow one profession to wear their uniforms *when they are not working*. It's not 9-5, but that doesn't mean prostitutes don't have working hours. No more than 40 a week even, according to UN law.

None of this is expressly forbidden by the Bill in question.

But possibly by others.

Honestly I despair of some of you sometimes, you spend so much time running round complaining about bills you don't like, you entirely forget to look for loopholes. :rolleyes:

OOC: I'm very tempted to have this as the start of a series. ;)

Yes, as I said, a series of extensions to this resolution, more debate, while, as some people said, we shouldn't deal with this at all. There's a good resolution now which can be used to deal with prostitution in a positive way, even if you don't like it. Don't force the UN to continue the whole debate now. Please.

That would violate the freedom of expression. Governments can regulate a private institution as far as it can regulate its citizenry, meaning only as far as the human rights of others are abridged. Clothing does not abridge others' rights, so a government cannot mandate a uniform on its population.

Let's bicker a bit here.

Police wear uniforms. Businesses require "business" clothing. There are parts of uniforms mandated in food industries.

This would seem to fit into legal categories, though we are rather interested in what uniforms would actually be necessary and/or conductive to business.

We can see some form of identifying mark especially useful (such as a badge or visible licence or marking), but would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

(And we are really not interested in hearing from those who would make the uniforms completely ridiculous and/or silly. Juvenile humor may be beneath the notice of this august body, but you will still be raspberried by me personally)

Prostitutes uniform....

That's less offensive to you than protected, legal, prostitution?

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

what's the point of looking for loopholes anyway? All it does it let nations pretend they are avoiding the will of the UN, when in reality the will of the UN has already affected them no matter how much they squirm.

what's the point of looking for loopholes anyway? All it does it let nations pretend they are avoiding the will of the UN, when in reality the will of the UN has already affected them no matter how much they squirm.

Nationstates is a form of Roleplaying. Now Roleplaying is, at it's core, pretending. So, looking for loopholes in resolutions that are only enforced in theory goes right along with the idea of roleplaying.

I don't understand that one either. That's why I advised Groot to hold off for a while before submitting the replacement.

Do you know I'm actually still gloating over that one? :)

1. DECLARES prostitution legal throughout the UN: any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute,

This is non-negotiable. If you're in the UN prostitution is legal within your country. Period. Don't claim it isn't. People will just point and laugh at the funny delegate.


Yes, it is non-negotiable because of the DECLARES clause. But I'm not sure nations are going to agree on what it does. It defines legal prostitution as the following: "any person who is mature, and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute".

Some nations may legalize prostitution in just the way the resolution says they should, and allow all of their citizenry to become "prosititutes"--which they'll term another word for circus clowns (they need lots of UN protection, actually). Of course, knowing the atmosphere of the UN, especially those in the forum, they'll be decried as ‘neocons’ and ‘pedantists’. But I haven't seen any logical arguments which say they can't do this.

Another way "around it" would be to enact so heavy of regulations, that almost no one in the country will meet the qualifications mature ,and capable of making their own decisions.--think RL examples such as Jim Crow laws and voting tests. There are many ways nations will use the regulation aspect of this resolution to stifle prostitution, if they even find they must earnestly legalize it. Passing a resolution doesn’t unite the UN under one opinion. Nations which don’t like the legislation will fight it in the avenues available to them.

Somewhat on topic, I find the disrespectful attitude many nations have towards others with differing opinions (as implied by Holy Word’s “people will just point and laugh at the funny delegate”) to be absolutely despicable. It undermines the UN and its members more than anyone trying not to succumb to a disagreeable opinion the UN is telling them to have (ie. “not reading the FAQ”). I’d rather see a hundred nations which say, “I don’t like this resolution, and I don’t want to comply” than one nation which won’t respect others.

Nationstates is a form of Roleplaying. Now Roleplaying is, at it's core, pretending. So, looking for loopholes in resolutions that are only enforced in theory goes right along with the idea of roleplaying.

True, but at the core of NS is the mechanics. The resolutions are part of those mechanics, and happen regardless of how much roleplay is roleplayed anyway.

Let's bicker a bit here.

Police wear uniforms. Businesses require "business" clothing. There are parts of uniforms mandated in food industries.

This would seem to fit into legal categories, though we are rather interested in what uniforms would actually be necessary and/or conductive to business.

We can see some form of identifying mark especially useful (such as a badge or visible licence or marking), but would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

(And we are really not interested in hearing from those who would make the uniforms completely ridiculous and/or silly. Juvenile humor may be beneath the notice of this august body, but you will still be raspberried by me personally)
Police aren't required to wear their uniforms off duty.
Holy Word is suggesting what the Nazis did to the jews - stigmatize them, make it easier to round them up for the gas chambers.

Somewhat on topic, I find the disrespectful attitude many nations have towards others with differing opinions (as implied by Holy Word’s “people will just point and laugh at the funny delegate”) to be absolutely despicable. It undermines the UN and its members more than anyone trying not to succumb to a disagreeable opinion the UN is telling them to have (ie. “not reading the FAQ”). I’d rather see a hundred nations which say, “I don’t like this resolution, and I don’t want to comply” than one nation which won’t respect others.

I think at one point during your campaign to repeal the original resolution, you said you'd want to see it fixed after repeal. So, you happy now?

Your example of a disrespectul attitude was off the mark; of course people aren't going to respect someone who doesn't understand the basic rules of the game. That wasn't about difference of opinion, that was about people asserting that they could ignore a NSUN resolution.

Holy Word, otoh, slipped over the bounds of reasoned debate when he recommended restricting legalized prostitution by methods the nazis used in the holocaust. I saw a couple other instances of what i take to be christian moralists advocating mass murder of anyone in their country involved in prostitution.

This shocks me. How can christians be advocating mass murder as a solution?

I think at one point during your campaign to repeal the original resolution, you said you'd want to see it fixed after repeal. So, you happy now?

Not really. I am glad Groot Gouda phrased the first clause the way he did, as it seems to open up some technicality legislation, but overall I find a lot of the attitudes I'd hoped to be vanquished aren't. At the time I said that, I was under the impression that the replacement would be a less-divisive-than-most resolution. At first glance, it appears I was wrong.

Your example of a disrespectul attitude was off the mark; of course people aren't going to respect someone who doesn't understand the basic rules of the game. That wasn't about difference of opinion, that was about people asserting that they could ignore a NSUN resolution.

Even if someone doesn't understand the basic rules of the game, that's no excuse to disrespect that person. I understand that it's a boost to the ego to put down other players because they don't understand everything, but it isn't necessary at all. The majority of the posts I've read which communicate "oh look, another person who hasn't read the FAQ" are pretty condescending--as if knowledge of the FAQ, or other game rules, is what lends a poster the right to respectful responses in the forums. It's an attitude I have issue with.

:rolleyes: As there is no way to prove the industry itself is solely responsible, once again this is a "let me put my head in the sand and attempt to ignore the causes nyahnyahnyah I can't see it it doesn't exist" bit of fluff.


Well, it's very hard to prove that heavy industry which creates water is directly responsible for any one case of cancer, but that doesn’t mean government can't require the industry to pay to clean up water pollution, and there have been several successful class action lawsuits against industry in cases like this.

In the case of the sex industry, it's actually really easy to prove, legally, that they are responsible for any one specific case. Person A gets AIDS from a prostitute. He sues the sex industry for failing to take proper precautions, or the government fines them for the same reason, and the industry ends up paying for the cost of a lifetime's worth of AIDS drugs. Not only is it possibly, it's quite likely what would end up happening in most governments.



Like hell. You just raise prices. Duh.

* makes notes "...lacks knowledge of business..." *


It's also quite possible for a business to be legal, but to put so many restrictions and expensive requirements on it that it might as well be illegal. Under the UN resolution, it's still quite legal for any government to say "Ok, but you have to pay a 1 million dollar "having sex with a prostitute" tax each time you hire a prostitute, and if you try to get around it, you and the prostitute both go to jail." Your government is following the letter of the UN resolution, and yet for all intents and purposes, prostitution is not legal in your country.



"Gee, I think I'll force it back underground. That way I can have even higher STD rates and problems, and convince myself I'm doing the right thing".

:rolleyes:


Well, that's the issue we were debating in the first place, isn't it. He wasn't trying to say that you SHOULD do this, necessarily, just that it's quite possible to get around the law and make it de facto illegal to have prostitution in your country.

Anyway, if you’re going to keep insisting that legal prostitution will decrease rates of STD’s, I’d like to see some kind of real-study of countries like Amsterdam that have legal prostitution to back it up. Otherwise you’re just blindly speculating on what the long-term social effects of a hypothetical policy might be, and frankly, no one can really predict something like that, at least not without making a lot of assumptions.

True, but at the core of NS is the mechanics. The resolutions are part of those mechanics, and happen regardless of how much roleplay is roleplayed anyway.

The way I believe UN resolutions, which are just strong opinions from the international community, work is that the passage of a resolution changes the political makeup of our nations. Our own governments change our laws as necessary to capture the essency of this big picture change.

For example, there have been a few resolutions that impose very specific American political models, such as the concept of a "Grand Jury".

That is fine. The reality may be most of the players coming up with resolutions are only exposed to these types of models, and thus their roleplay and decision making is very influenced by thinks like an "Electoral College", "Grand Jury", or "Supreme Court". Thus it makes sense for them to make changes to everybody's "Grand Jury" instead of their "court systems".

But the moderators have (mostly) held that players are free to come up with their own laws. Heck, they even encourage some cases of godmoding ... "My galatic battlefleet will teleport in and nuke your nation! Hahaha!" Of course in the case of roleplaying, they take a very hands-off approach.

I'd argue that the UN resolutions represent a shift in how our citizens and leaders think, but the mechanics of those changes are still left up to individual roleplay.

In fact, I pointed out before, that the changes made by the "daily issues" not only change our game stats, but our summary text as well. It is very possible that at some point in time that UN members will hit a enthuanasia daily issue: right of suicide. The UN adopted a resolution over a year ago allowing this, so if the game really wanted to enforce its own UN resolutions on UN members, UN members shouldn't even be presented such a daily issue. And yet, it has long been explained that daily issues are not impacted by the UN.

Oh my god you are all absolute geeks. Besides, i thought Americans found 3 syllable words hard to pronounce. You must be slightly english...

P.s It's A Computer Game!!!!!!!

P.P.S JESUS CHRIST!! If I weren't so concerned about your mental welfare I'd laugh until I choked, vomitted and eventually forced out my stomach through my mouth

Let's bicker a bit here.

Police wear uniforms. Businesses require "business" clothing. There are parts of uniforms mandated in food industries.

This would seem to fit into legal categories, though we are rather interested in what uniforms would actually be necessary and/or conductive to business.

We can see some form of identifying mark especially useful (such as a badge or visible licence or marking), but would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

(And we are really not interested in hearing from those who would make the uniforms completely ridiculous and/or silly. Juvenile humor may be beneath the notice of this august body, but you will still be raspberried by me personally)

A few things, really:

-In the Holy Word's case, he's making the industry private. Because it's a private industry it gets treated the same way that any individual would- with the same amount of rights bestowed to the common citizen. Thus, if the government cannot force its citizens to wear a uniform, then a government cannot force a private industry to impose a uniform on its workplace.

-Now, if a private industry- or, rather, an individual business- so chooses to impose a uniform on their employees, that is their choice- if businesses want people to wear suits and ties, so be it. It's all about choice. This means that some businesses- which do indeed exist- may choose to not require its employees to wear a uniform or have a "dress code", and that is completely legal. The point here is that a business has the choice to impose clothing regulations if they so choose- the government does not mandate that to happen.

-Things like police, firefighting, etc. are public jobs. Thus the government can set regulations regarding their jobs (like having uniforms required) since, after all, they are working directly for the government. It's the same deal with a private industry, only that in this case the employer is the government. Plus, as Asshelmetta said earlier, when they're "off-duty" they're not required to wear a uniform, and it's illegal to force people to work 24/7.

Having said all that, I'd also like to state that a "prostitution uniform" would also probably be extremely revealing- not something I think several of the opponents of this Resolution would think of when they think "uniform".

I could probably also argue from the above that things like dress codes and uniforms in a school are also illegal since school is not a "job"- it's a public institution that provides a service to the public, not one that hires from the public to work for the government.

After reading the posts I am quite genuinely surprised at how the game mirrors reality.

First, I agree with the posts that suggest that somehow condending comments and attitudes have a place in the international arena of ideas. No matter what circumstances are brought up it still comes down to smug superiority that dilutes the message.

Second, I agree with the post that loopholes can be found. I don't know what countries everyone lives in but there are numerous examples of groups, individuals, and institutions that attempt to find ways around certain laws. Usually they end up in some sort of judicial system where they win sometimes and lose sometimes. I find the attacks against these actions amusing and not realizing the nature of humans. I can't speak to the non human actions.

Third, I am increasingly suprised at how the UN in nation state is beginning to become as irrelevant as the actual one. I was reading through some earlier resolutions and was impressed by many. However, I agree with other members when I look at the original resolution, the repeal, and the comeback resolution. How many times does it take to move on? Like the actual UN often talks a lot and does little I am surprised at the wasteful amount of time spent on one subject. While genocide, or in the UN words, crimes against humanity occur, the UN does nothing in Darfour. Of course what can one expect when genocides have occurred regularly over the last 50 years and the UN did nothing. (see Pol Pot, etc)

The childlike name calling while entertaining for a while has lost its luster. The rigidity of thought is not surprising since that also mirrors reality. Thank you to those insightful individuals that really made me think.

Samsonish

Yep, only intelligent goverments would do something proactive to aid the problem. The UN does not require you to be sensible.So, in other words, you acknowledge that this is not a mandate.

See above.So once again, you accept I am entirely legally correct.


:rolleyes: As there is no way to prove the industry itself is solely responsible, once again this is a "let me put my head in the sand and attempt to ignore the causes nyahnyahnyah I can't see it it doesn't exist" bit of fluff.So is this a legal move? Yes or no?

Like hell. You just raise prices. Duh.

* makes notes "...lacks knowledge of business..." *Pricing themselve out of the market, no?


"Gee, I think I'll force it back underground. That way I can have even higher STD rates and problems, and convince myself I'm doing the right thing".

:rolleyes:
Opinion.

False. See Communist USSR and "barter". What is this Communist USSR you speak of? What region is it in?


Silly, but what the hell, why break a streak?And yet again you don't try to dispute that it would be legal.


Vastiva has decided to make another sitcom out of those who think your way. Should be rather high on the ratings, people seem to like parodies and satire aimed at the... "less able".But despite your rather amusing ad hominem attacks, you haven't actually disputed that anything I've said would be illegal. It is always the remarkable sign of an ill cause when aspersions take the place of argument.

"...any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute..."

Simple. Becoming a prostitute is an immature decision. Thus, anyone who wants to become a prostitute is thus immature, therefore they may not become a prostitute.

I love "Catch-22"s. (To be declared insane, you must sign a paper stating that you are insane. Because you are looking after your safety, you are sane, thus invalidating your statement.)

"...any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute..."

Simple. Becoming a prostitute is an immature decision. Thus, anyone who wants to become a prostitute is thus immature, therefore they may not become a prostitute.

I love "Catch-22"s. (To be declared insane, you must sign a paper stating that you are insane. Because you are looking after your safety, you are sane, thus invalidating your statement.)
I think the resolution means maturity with regard to legal age. For example, (OOC RL) in the US you must be 21 to drink. The US gov't acknowledges that you are legally mature. However, one could argue that no truly mature person would consume a substance that serves only to destroy brain cells and hinder right judgment.

Maturity in a psychological sense can be debated into eternity. Maturity in a legal sense is clearly outlined, and I believe that this is what the resolution was referring to.

<long verbose post>


We never said you were wrong, we said you were silly. We would have added wrong-headed and short-sighted, but we didn't.

You've also been beartrapped.


What is this Communist USSR you speak of? What region is it in?


Communist USSR no longer exists - it was in the South Pacific. It was noted for having a 100% tax rate and terrible ratings in the short time I knew it.

*raspberries you*

Resolutions like this are another great example on why my nation has made private business illegal. Right now prostitution is "legal" in my nation, yet the government has no plans to open an officially sanctioned whore house. And any private citizen that wishes to prostitute themself will still be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

God bless loopholes.

Resolutions like this are another great example on why my nation has made private business illegal. Right now prostitution is "legal" in my nation, yet the government has no plans to open an officially sanctioned whore house. And any private citizen that wishes to prostitute themself will still be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

God bless loopholes.

We'll be selling you STD curatives by the caseload soon.

after some thinking, I decide to go for the "dress code".
since prostitute may need that for their job those clothes would be atrractive and sexy. we got increasing in the prostitution rates.
some companies would make those clothes and improve them for benefitical effect. the clothes industrey will increased, too.
the capitalistic way may lead to commercials on the clothes. benefits for all the economy.
prostitutes will become the new models (since they are in public places). many will go to the prostitute and their taxes will went to the govrment.
the future is good, and the prostitution is on the way in.

In the case of the sex industry, it's actually really easy to prove, legally, that they are responsible for any one specific case. Person A gets AIDS from a prostitute. He sues the sex industry for failing to take proper precautions, or the government fines them for the same reason, and the industry ends up paying for the cost of a lifetime's worth of AIDS drugs. Not only is it possibly, it's quite likely what would end up happening in most governments.

So, if a factory pollutes drinking water, you sue the whole heavy industry sector? Proving that someone got an STD from a prostitute is quite hard to do. Perhaps that person slept with someone else with an STD. Of course, in other cases it can be proven and measures taken. Which is good, because the whole industry can profit from that.

It's also quite possible for a business to be legal, but to put so many restrictions and expensive requirements on it that it might as well be illegal. Under the UN resolution, it's still quite legal for any government to say "Ok, but you have to pay a 1 million dollar "having sex with a prostitute" tax each time you hire a prostitute, and if you try to get around it, you and the prostitute both go to jail." Your government is following the letter of the UN resolution, and yet for all intents and purposes, prostitution is not legal in your country.

However, you have to treat prostitution like other legitimate business. You can't put an excessive amount of tax on prostitution without also doing so on other businesses. Discrimination is also illegal. It would make an interesting court case.

Anyway, if you’re going to keep insisting that legal prostitution will decrease rates of STD’s, I’d like to see some kind of real-study of countries like Amsterdam that have legal prostitution to back it up. Otherwise you’re just blindly speculating on what the long-term social effects of a hypothetical policy might be, and frankly, no one can really predict something like that, at least not without making a lot of assumptions.

I'll see if I can find any figures, but remember that legalisation in the Netherlands is fairly recent and not as well-implemented as this resolution suggests. They basically said "it's legal now", but because of the absence of proper regulation not a lot is changing yet, and because of the tolerant approach it wasn't a particularly bad situation before legalisation. Logical reasoning shows that it does improve circumstances on the long term though.

I think the resolution means maturity with regard to legal age. For example, (OOC RL) in the US you must be 21 to drink. The US gov't acknowledges that you are legally mature. However, one could argue that no truly mature person would consume a substance that serves only to destroy brain cells and hinder right judgment.

Maturity in a psychological sense can be debated into eternity. Maturity in a legal sense is clearly outlined, and I believe that this is what the resolution was referring to.

One could also interpret the resolution to wasn't referring to that.

Let's suppose that a government doesn't base maturity level on age, but instead on something else, like actions. Then prostitution is technically legal, but the act of prostituting makes you immature, thus making it illegal. Thus it is still practically illegal in that country.

One could also interpret the resolution to wasn't referring to that.

Let's suppose that a government doesn't base maturity level on age, but instead on something else, like actions. Then prostitution is technically legal, but the act of prostituting makes you immature, thus making it illegal. Thus it is still practically illegal in that country.
logically weak. you can't say man is immature because of his actions, you only can say that his actions are immature. as such even if prostitution is immature act, the person who did it is still mature and he could be prostitute.

It would be discrimination to have higher taxes solely on whores, but it would not be discrimination to have high tax on the whole immoral sex industry. Either way the bottom line is this. You will not force whoring on moral nations. We will find ways around it or we will simply not comply. That is the beauty of this rp game.

It would be discrimination to have higher taxes solely on whores, but it would not be discrimination to have high tax on the whole immoral sex industry. Either way the bottom line is this. You will not force whoring on moral nations. We will find ways around it or we will simply not comply. That is the beauty of this rp game.
You've got that evil dictator thing going beautiful, man!
I can almost hear the accent when you type.

Only the second most corrupt government in your region, though?
You've gotta do better than that!
Maybe you could just invade the nationstate that's beating you out.

Don't worry, you're well on your way to being reclassified as a psychotic dictatorship.