Debate: Capitalism vs. Democracy
Side: Capitalism

You speak ill of Prostitution, but you seem to act like these sex workers are only sex workers because it's legal... well, no. Here in America, the illegal sex trade is far worse than the legal sex trade. As for YOUR example of prostitution in New Zealand that you posted a few posts back, I was able to show you how your stats were flawed.Freedom of personal choice is important, but we see that prostitution, legalized, is safer than prostitution made illegal. It takes power away from the pimps and gangs and to the businessman. A healthy prostitute is better for a legal business than a beat up, unhealthy prostitute. But I guess you'll just use your old/10 stats again. Your anecdotal horror stories aren't helping your argument, they're actually making it worse (referring the prostitution argument, of course).So it's really "exploited by pimps and gangs", which is how it is in this country. In Nevada, however, the prostitutes (whether doing it just because they need money or not) are clean and kept safe. Everywhere else, prostitutes are dirty, bruised, and addicted to something. And freedom of personal choice favors everyone... because we are not limited by the moral majority. If I want to drink beer, snort coke and then bang a hooker, I will not be limited because I have civil liberties. If you would like to, you can do it as well. When you take these liberties away, everyone is limited. We all still do it, but if we're caught, we're punished (even our politicians and celebrities).As for children, emancipation and custody switching happens all the time for various reasons. Smoking usually isn't an issue because most smoker-parents smoke outside (if a child is there). As well, almost every house has a fire-alarm. But I don't see the purpose of your argument. Are you saying that because YOU don't know how children ask for legal emancipation, that's why smoking should be regulated (even within the household?) You should clear that one up...And that's another interesting one:You said that more people will drive drunk if cops look for impairment instead of intoxication. Evidence? The problem with looking for intoxication, once again, is that when you put a "limit" to blood alcohol, you are putting the claim that under that limit, people are okay to drive... evidence? Impairment is proven through roadside sobriety tests. In fact, most drunk driving cases use ONLY the sobriety tests. Not everyone is forced to use a breathalyzer or blood test mainly because it involves more procedure. The problem comes in when someone who has "one for the road" (which is meant for people who drink a quick one, get behind the wheel, and doesn't get effected by the alcohol until they are home or almost home) usually get fucked the most by breathalyzer/blood tests since most cops don't have the equipment with them. Meanwhile, people who were actually driving over the limit will have time to lose some of their toxicity by the time the equipment is used on them.And I don't see how Civil War is CAUSED by freedom of choice... are you saying that both people who are fighting just wanted the ability to choose, so they fought? Or is it that one party wishes to live their personal lives without intrusion and the government is overbearing? Once again, I don't see how this helps your argument... it kind of helps mine, though. So thanks :)And interesting about your Anarchy theory, I still have not seen any evidence to claim that people will just go around raping people. You ask me to for proof that they won't, but that's like asking for proof that God DOESN'T exist, or that nuclear missiles WEREN'T in Iraq. You can't prove a negative, so the burden of proof ends up being on the one who claims that it does exist. You claim that Anarchy will result in constant murder and rape (or some shit like that), so I ask for the evidence. And it's interesting that you brought Freud into this (a hero of mine). Are you saying that through Anarchy kids will fuck their parents? Evidence, please. Freud's Oedipus Complex does not mean that children automatically wish to fuck their parents. It was all behind his theories that sex has to do with everything, and that the son loving the mother and hating the father is a result of sexual impulse. This does NOT prove, however, that children will start fucking their parents if government left.I am not defending Anarchy, because I do believe that it's important to have Law and Order (in order to make sure that those who harm others are punished for it), but your attacks on personal liberties and Anarchy are all purely based on your stigma towards people and the lifestyles they wish to have. As well, minus the tribes, Anarchy is virtually impossible. To this day, I have yet to see a truly anarchic society. Even Anarchists are organized and based on common ideals.