Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: democracy

My example of prostitution involved two people I know. They were prostitutes over a period of time that involved before and after the legalization. I not once said "only sex workers because it's legal." They were sex workers because of the money.The reason why I brought up these two "anecdotal horror stories" is to point out that your view is from the outside, the paying customer who should have free rights to "bang a hooker". You do not take into account the exploitation. They let you bang them, mostly, because you give them money. And yes, this argument can be extrapolated to the office worker, bla bla bla. Capitalism, while it seems to favor freedom of choice (it does if you are rich or privileged) restricts most of the choice of the marginalized.I'm going to stop using stats, because we both know how biased some are. In our postmodern society there is very little to help decide on whats the truth or not.Nevada? You think that Nevada's heavily regulated prostitution example backs you up?Businessmen=pimps and gangs who use MYOB to find out what they are doing wrong?And the government is taking their cut too. So lets share the blame.PLEASE stop using absolutes because they hurt your rhetoric:"In Nevada, however, the prostitutes are clean and kept safe.""Everywhere else, prostitutes are dirty, bruised, and addicted to something.""As for children, emancipation and custody switching happens all the time for various reasons.""We all still do it, but if we're caught, we're punished."These are simply not absolutely true.I understand fully emancipation of children (In your logic it happens all the time for children. I was a child! SO MUCH EMANCIPATION! I hardly had time to go potty). I was just slightly shocked that your solution for a child who wishes to not be affected by second hand smoke should have nothing to do with parents choice to stop smoking, or restrictions on their freedom of choice. No, the child should just get emancipated. "Emancipate" is such a great word! It gives a feeling of freedom and good results! Fantastic.HMM.You act like I argue in the same way that you do.I never said "EVERYONE under the blood alcohol limit are ok to drive". The burden of evidence is not on me, I understand fully that there are MANY other factors that make people unfit to drive. By saying this you are calling for evidence that shows exactly what makes people unsafe to drive and placing restrictions on all of these things.No, you are not(well I don't think you are), I know that. And don't think I am saying this either. Just using absolutes and putting words into your mouth much like you do mine, to give you an example of what I mean.Don't school me on police procedure. I fail to see your problem with drink driving if (in USA) "most drunk driving cases use ONLY the sobriety tests." Your problem is already solved and the cops test just on impairment. In New Zealand it is different. All traffic cops have Breathalyzers.1)A person who has "one for the road" will never be over the limit, even over time, unless they have had drinks before this "one."2)A person driving over the "limit" will have to be held up rather a long time for them to lose toxicity, as it generally takes an hour for the body to process a single standard drink.I will admit that there are hold ups in the system, on the road and where ever. But this means that a person having "one for the road" is driving irresponsibly as they could be held up by traffic or whatever and then suddenly become over the limit!Where do you draw the line with impairment? Where do you draw the line with a limit? For a policing system to work, lines have to be drawn, and let the court decide if the margin of error is to small to charge.Why are we arguing this margin of error, when (if you go to court and watch you will see) most drink drivers caught are NOWHERE near this margin of error.But I am arguing from a New Zealand perspective, you are arguing from a USA perspective. In NZ the blood alcohol/breath alcohol limit is 80mg to 100ml/400mgc per 1liter. This is less if you are under 20. LOL, funny, I got a txt this morning from a friend, he has had his second or third drink driving conviction today. Twice the legal limit. This time he is facing possible jail time or mandatory alcohol counseling. Before it was just a fine and loss of license.In EVERY CIVIL WAR freedom of choice is a massive factor. I never used the word "caused". I said "led to" in reference to disorder, but I freely admitted that it was not the ONLY factor.THIS WHOLE section of the argument stems from you saying that freedom of choice has never led to disorder. I showed you an example, and you tried to destroy it by saying that it was really the Other factors. But I maintain that freedom of choice is the base of civil war(but not the only factor). You back me up here "one party wishes to live their personal lives without intrusion and the government is overbearing?" Live life without intrusion=freedom of civil liberties anyone?Anarchy is a hard one to pin down, because TOTAL anarchy is virtually impossible like you say.(Why do you still think tribes are an example of anarchy?)But there are anarchists who are idealistic and ones who fight the government. I am not referring to the middle class anarchists, I am referring to warfare, gangs, ACTUAL disorder. You ask for proof? I thought I had already given you "proof"?http://www.worldconcern.org/issues/anarchy.htm http://www.villagevoice.com/2001-02-06/news/gang-rape-in-sudan/ But what is proof? We both agree that biased statistics and subjectivity is overbearing. IF no one can give proof, and no one can prove a negative, then what is the point of arguing, because we are both right and both wrong? It just depends on your perspective.Despite me constantly asking for you not to make illogical conclusions about what I am saying, you consistently do."I don't agree with a lot of what Freud says"(me)"Are you saying that through Anarchy kids will fuck their parents? Evidence, please."(you)Please stop asking for evidence if you never give conclusive evidence yourself. What is the point of me providing evidence if no evidence (in this postmodern world) is conclusive.To me, you are wrong and I am correct. In your mind, you are right and I am wrong.I can quite safely state:From my perspective your full of shit.