They are PROSTITUTES, not "sex workers." What they do is illegal under the laws of most states and localities. If they are breaking the law, then they should not be afforded the same protections as law abiding citizens. Prostitutes routinely put themselves in situations that result in harm coming to them. So I say, let them suffer. Every one that is maimed or injured is one less on the street.

Wow, Wally, your thought is so original and thought provoking. Sarcasm intended. I'm sure you figure you're the first person to ever say something of this nature and with that eloquence. Your post is thinly veiled misogyny and I doubt you feel the same way for your friends and neighbors who hire sex workers. Sorry to burst your bubble Wally but Gary Ridgway already stole your idea. He's likely to be the recipient of all the justice the general population at Walla Walla will afford him. Do some research Wally, you don't know what you're talking about. Aligning yourself with the views of a serial killer isn't saying a whole lot about you as a law abiding citizen.

Ignorance, heartlessness, brutal judgement; yep, you sound like a cop to me, Wally. Sex workers, prostitutes, whatever you want to call them, they are still human beings, and therefore have something called human rights which no one is justified in violating. "Let them suffer"? "One less on the street"? If there is justice in the universe, which I believe there is, the unfortunate women whose hard, unfair life circumstances led them into lives of sex slavery will be in heaven while the souls of you (Wally) and your fellow morality police will be suffering in torment with all of the other scribes and pharisees who demanded the stoning of the adultress in order to fulfill their supposed "law".

i dont believe there is justice in the universe, but there is in people's heads. (one could go into whether this is from the universe, etc. is the universe alive, or just some things in it. ask your pet rock.
also, they dont like being dropped. )

other countries legalize sex work (and the us has in-between things, like escorts or lap dancers) as a way of avoiding the street life hazards. some do this with drugs too.
its probably not going to happen soon here, but it might be interesting if any diy alternatives could be developed. maybe 1 Judiciary square could have an open lounge or something.
it might be more conveniant too----one could do a market research study to see who commutes from where and select a location. maybe Spark could be put there too.

of course this would infringe on freedom for people to be themselves, which is always the problem with any group process. to avoid one kind of compromise (street life) one has to do another (deal with a group process). so its a 'marginal utility' calculation. which is easier using a cost/benefit or risk analyses ?

it seems prostitutes could just run for office, collect a few votes, and then work out of the white house. but this requires coordinated action, and you have to get up before 9 pm. so, its probably not worth it. the west wing would be nice. maybe they can ask the customer to vote for them on the way to work next morning?

also, its hard to do cost/benefit analyses. its easier to just do it. shoot first, ask no questions. join the army, and get paid. if you ask questions, you wont get those adventures.

also, as the good folks at GMU know people arent good at these calculations. this is why the GMU people get Noble Prizes, as opposed to have to walk the street. They have Merit, though perhaps just different tastes (some people naturally like to pick up strangers on a cold street, i guess. God, in His Infinite Wisdom and sense of Justus allocates social space to each of his lil crreations as they deserve.)

people who are good at marginal utility calculations, like those at GMU, also get Cash Money from nice people like the John Olin foundation, Coors (a good beer), etc. to fund some 'academic' studies which in combination with the taxpayer funded GMU research, then are applied to optimize business profit by doing the standard hit and run thing to irrational people..
they have figured out that humans are not good at calculating because they are either stupid, misinformed, or have bad habits, or conformist (itself a habit---including 'prejudiced')).
this permits you to develop alternatvie markets for each kind of irrationality (pepsi or coke? you want to own the coke company or fix the vending machine?) and then have a hierarchy, a class structure, and a clearly visible line seperating the good and the bad (remember what jesus said about prosititues?).
dont trip over that line. jump hoops, and dream on


the other thing i wonder here, is like drugs. you wonder exatly how much of an economy there is in this. you wonder who spends how much money this way and why. also what the workers do with it, just like any workers. (i know one sex worker who used it to go to 'grad school', but i have met others who use it to get 'high'. in both cases, much of the money gets concentrated among people with higher incomes than sex workers----university president's slaries, drug kingpins, etc, Now, they may be the same peple if one includes legal drugs)

Line Dancing,
Are you responding to my response? It sort of seems like you are, yet your response (which I'm sure makes perfect sense to you in your own head) is incoherent babbling. Words like "marginal utility calculation" and "cost benefit/risk analysis" only serve to transform an already unintelligable response into a long, boring response. I think you're trying to criticize what I wrote, but who knows. It would be easier to decipher heiroglyphics than to understand what you are getting at. Next time you endeavor to write an incoherent response, at least keep it short.

Cop, no. Anti-crime, yes. When DC's ghetto dwellers kill eachother, I don't shed a tear. Why do you ask? Because, then my tax dollars don't go toward housing him in an expensive maximum security prison for 20 years at about $45,000 per year. My tax dollars don't pay for his court fees, or his "rehabilitation," so that he can be put right back into the community he shits on. Prostitutes are also breaking the law, and the same argument applies, with the one notable fact that the cost per year in the DC Jail is somewhat lower.

Wally let me ask you something. Imagine that some day you are driving through an intersection and the light turns red. You stop short to avoid running the red light but end up somewhat in the crosswalk. A pedestrian comes to your car and maims and injures you. I take it you'd be fine with no punishment for your attacker because you were breaking the law? Because given your stance, you technically wouldn't be attacked because you wouldn't count in the statistics of law abiding citizens as stopping in a crosswalk is illegal.

I don't stop in the crosswalk, so your point is moot.

Wally, you're another pathetic case of a duped citizen who misdirects the blame. Do you find fault with the government who steals your money literally at gunpoint (taxes) and then uses it to punish people who they deem morally inferior? No, rather, you side with the bullies who hide behind uniforms and bureaucracy just like the good, obedient fascist that you are. You call yourself "anticrime"? What about the crimes your government commits on a daily basis? Arresting a woman for having sex is a crime. Taking people's money against their will and then using it to fund an operation of mass murder is a crime. Ruling over people without the consent of the governed is a crime. But you, Wally, are not against any of these things. You only believe that crime is what the sleazy men in suits and uniforms write in their books of law as crime. You are not anti-crime. You're antiliberty. Yet, the "authorities" you love so much will turn on you in a second if you give them even the slightest reason. One day you will learn that Uncle Sam hates you. So give it up, Wally, fascism is bad for your health.

Hypothetically what if you slide on ice into the cross walk? You're still breaking the law because you should have thought about the possibility of that happening and put yourself into the situation. Using your logic. So now what Wally?

I figured you'd be a coward and use the I don't stop on crosswalks for an answer rather than try to address the question. Wally, thirty seconds of reading emails of yours pretty much seems to sum you up as a person. You want someone else to solve everything that you feel is a problem. You want serial killers to maim and injure prostitutes. Drug dealers to kill each other off. Instead of whining and taking the poor me, my neighborhood is ruined by this and that, why don't you grow up and look and the bigger picture and constructive solutions. You can start by doing some research on prostitution so that you can do something constructive rather than just rabble rouse.

>>So I say, let them suffer. Every one that is maimed or injured is one less on the street. >> >>Cop, no. Anti-crime, yes>> Wally you realize maiming and injuring someone is a crime? Correct? I believe the two quotes of yours contradict each other. So now whose point is moot?

Seems that I have stirred up the hornet's nest here. You lefties are so insecure in your ideology, that you are blind to certain things. When I said anti-crime, I meant anti-crime towards law abiding citizens, which most street urchins, including prostitutes, are not.

Anti-liberty? I don't think so. I truly believe in maintaining the rights that law-abiding citizens have in this country, including firearm ownership, free speech, and freedom of religion. That said, all I see from the left is an effort to ban all firearms, ban all speech that does not agree with leftist propaganda, and criminalize Christianity. I am not religious, but when I hear a leftie say that Islam is the "religion of peace," I just gotta sit back and laugh. But whatever, the vast majority of those on the left share behavioral traits akin to those who have been brainwashed.

As for taking the, "poor me, my neighborhood is ruined by this and that" attitude, I don't know where you are coming from on this, as I stated nothing of the sort in my original or follow up posts. This is once again a trait common to leftists everywhere, twisting ones words around so as to as to achieve maximum propaganda value. I am involved in my neighborhood, and I help solve some of the problems that the police don't have time to solve. One example of this was to set up video survailence to capture images of a vehicle and persons who were burglarizing the street I live on. Once the tapes in question were forwarded to the authorities, the burglars were soon arrested, and later convicted of their crimes. I've even helped chase off a couple of "white power" types who were puting their filth up in our community. But, I guess none of this counts in the eyes of the leftist.

Finally, the level of education of the average leftist posting on this site is depressingly low, based on the intelligence and continuity of your posts. As this nation moves further and further towards the right, I only see you getting more and more marginalized. But, I suppose you will all just smoke some crack and sit in a drum circle, and remember your heyday in the 60's.

Dear Wally,

My name is Jill Leighton, I'm the Executive Director of STORM, Sex Trade Opportunities for Risk Minimization. I'm also a former sex worker/prostitute. Wally, I was injured in prostitution. I was also abducted out of a mall at age 14 which lead to me being in prostitution. I went out and did something about what happened to me in order to make life better for others in similar situations. I co-founded an organization to reduce violence against sex workers and work with individuals who want to transistion out of the sex industry. I did and do this because I want a world where others are not victimized the way that I was. What would have happened Wally, if I took your outlook and wished harm on everyone remotely connected to the harm inflicted on me? I'd be a man hating zealot looking to take out anger over issues that happened a long time ago. Instead, I chose to do something productive. I would encourage you to do the same thing. I believe your views are misguided and willing to discuss the differences in opinion with you on this message board because I believe there is constructive value in exchange of ideas. I won't get into a flame fest with you but if you want to discuss your concerns with a real live former sex worker, I'm open to that as long as it stays at a level of professional courtesy and doesn't devolve into another of the internets famous flame fests.

This is an issue I know a few things about, given my own position in life. First of all, most of my friends and dates among "cruising" or "street" gays have nothing but the uttermost contempt for laws that try to tell people what to do with their own bodies!

I do not recognize any law made by any entitiy telling anyone-man or woman-what they can and cannot do with their own body and the only effects of such laws on my own behavior are on matters of defense.

Second, every last one of the negatives associated with sex work are LABOR issues-not issues of the service itself being provided!
Sex work is a lot like thye garment industry. Although the garment industry, like the sex industry, is infested with capitalists running sweatshops and unsafe facilities, nobody calls for banning the trade in clothing! Instead we call for garment workers to have the right to organize unions, a ban on sweatshops, that kind of thing.

Similarily, sex workers have the right to a union, to require that protection be used, and the like. If a pimp is holding someone against their will in a brothel-or a coyote is holding someone in an NYC garment sweatshop, that is slavery and should be dealt with in both cases as that kind of offense.It is not an indictment of the product category as a whole!

In the Gay community, sex work is mostly an artisan driven trade, and abusive conditons are not tolerated. No gay/bi male sex worker tolerates anybody acting like they own them! .

An interesting comparison springs to mind. In one Gay strip club, dancers get $20 per show(time the number of shows they perform that night) plus tips. In a nearby straight strip[ club featuring women, the women get more tips than men generally do-but have to kick back the first $100 to the house!

This being so, and other examples abounding, I think the Gay sex industry in the West should be regarded as a model for sex work in general. Interestingly,at one time all make hookers and all independant female hookers were both referred to as "outlaws" in street slang!

As for Wally, he would not last long in the SE enclave!

Puke,

I live in SE. My neighbors like me. Deal with it.

luke is on point. sex work is work, and the issue is the same as any other labor---pay, working conditions, etc.
in addition, one can ask whether the work is valuable or should be legal. i question the value of selling junk food, weapons, gasoline, etc. though these are legal. also, a large fraction of taxpayer funded research has little value (NIH recently had a nice 'scandal' in which 'researchers' had finance interests in firms selling the drugs they were studying. ) i have my own socially valuable investing firm that measures the social value of everthing.

as for tariq, my main critique was the notion of 'univeral justice'. i dislike bringing these philosophical issues into real life its an excuse for building a church for a moral PoliceCheif using slave labor.. the same idea of universal justice is often used to explain why some people end up murdered, or why some are poor---god damned them.

so, i consider that 'incoherent babble' which muddies the discussion of the problems of sex work or any other work, and also leads to alot of boring discussions (eg theology, sermons, etc.) as well as actions (relgious wars, etc.) . these only have value from the viewpoint of sociology

so these irrelevant discussions are as much a cause of the 'unfairness' of life as any other in my opinion. Its spam. unnnecesary mental violence. maybe it should be illegal. the ghandi/king sermons maybe should be locked up with the bible until they do a double feature wiuth Bambi and Godzilla..

and dont frget that religion is the original moral police who threw people out, because they make sex a taboo which they try to censor with talk about justice.


also, the new religion is promoted by the GMU econ department, among others, which is their Sermons on Cost and Benefit, They determine who gets thrown on the street now, and who doesnt, just as the preachers did in the past. you repeat their theology---cost/benefit is boring. it replaces sex is taboo.

tits taboo for anyone except the experts, the preachers. . The preachers just told people sex was a sin; at GMU they tell you what the wage scale is. Thats all people need to know. The rest is for the clergy.

at GMU they will let a few peple learn how to do it a little (sex in mariage, run a walmart using some anlayses). but nothing more general. you cant look at the finances of the church, government, or university.


the experts will also say they have more merit and expertise, as a preacher is closer to god thasn a sex worker. They will tell you the 'marginal utility' (value) of anyone but them and their friends is minimal, Life is Unfair because some are Inferior.. hey know, because they did the math themselves.
Others cant do the math. so they have to spend all day cleaning floors for minimum wage, rather than cry like a baby so the government will give them a big contract to do research on how to shaft walmart employees. r find genes they can patent and own as 'private property' which should not be taken from them..

and since they also do Law and Economics, they mess with the legal system. they calculate how much it costs to buy laws that benefit them---who should get prosecuted for drug and sex crimes, and who shouldnt. so the laws benefit them.
they dont want anyone else writing the laws, to determine who is legit. other people might write unjust laws.

they know they have if not Universal Justus, one that Merits attention..

i consder them intellectual prostitutes.
its unfortunate that they dont teach anything about fairness, and istead just how to practice unfairness and go tithe the chruch or opiate of the day.


in sum, religion is the universal opiate, and rather than pray for Justus i'd do some cost benefit anlyses try it you'll like it.

Line Dancing,
I have no idea what you're talking about. Once again, I think you're trying to criticize something I wrote but I'm not exactly sure what. My first response to your long, boring, incomprehensible posting is still applicable. I'm not sure, but I think you have something against Ghandi and Martin Luther King jr. While I'm sure it makes sense to you (in your own head), it doesn't make any sense to me. As for Ghandi and Dr. King, I'll take their spirituality over your cost/benefit analysis gooble-gobble any day of the week. You seem to have an obsesive problem with GMU's economics department (I think. I can't make out exactly what it is that you're getting at). Well, I don't know or care. I've never set foot in an economics class in my entire life, and -- if taking economics will result in me writing the way you do -- I hope I never do. Nevertheless, I think (but am not sure) we both agree that it is unjustified to violate the rights of all human beings, including sex workers.
Wally,
I've never smoked crack or sat in a drum circle, and my heyday wasn't in the sixties as I wasn't even born yet. I'm sure you'd love to discount any criticism against your hate speech as being mere "leftist propaganda". I'm also sure that you like people to fit into simple categories so that you can rationalize your own irrational, murderous (yes, murderous is the correct word. For proof, see Wally's former postings) ideas, but I'll let you in on a little news flash. I'm not a leftist. I've never supported bans on firearms, bans on free speech, or bans on freedom of religion. Nor (unlike you) do I support bans on prostitution, as fines, jail cells, and man-made governments have never done anything to improve the moral nature of humanity. I'm sure you'd love to simply file me under "leftist" in the closet of your brain, but that's not going to happen with me, Wally. You may actually have to think for once in your life. I'm an anarchist, neither right nor left. Your claim that you believe in liberty is as incorrect as Bush's claim that he believes in peace. Anyone who sets up video surveillance cameras to help the "authorities" convict "criminals" (who need friendship and education, not brutal retribution) and then claims to believe in liberty is nothing short of a hypocrite. But what is a government worshipping "law abiding citizen" if not a hypocrite hiding behind a mask of repectability? The gig is up, Wally. You're a fraud. You don't love liberty. you love fascism, the kind of fascism that comes wrapped up in a clean-cut, morally upright (yet bloodstained) red white and blue, Muslim-killing, mysogynist flag. The true filthy whore of this world is the government whose boots you and all the other wanna-be cops lick like the depraved slaves of "law" that you are.

anarchists who use state-sponsored institutions to survive including the police and university systems may only think they are anarchists; in fact they are willing and sanctimonious collaborators in the entire state sponsored system of 'hierarchy and oppression".
they probably should not pay taxes, run for office or call the police for help, or go to universities . you dont have to pay most taxes if you dont participate in the economy of violence, and yuo dont have to go to university, call the police or or run for office.
of course alot of these anarchists are actually just statist-capitalists (libertarians) . they want taxes to pay for prisons for people who try to take their property ---which they stole from the Indians or employees..
they are playing the same competetive game as anyone else and use any means neccesary (including the government). they love the government when it locks up someone they dislike, and hate it when it doesnt..
they call it a filthy whore, and then go and pay for Her services.

religion is a filthy whore, all of them----the moral hierarchy, the educational hierarchy, and the legal one. the anarcho-ideological one. they all sell their services to whoever will pay. all these preachers flacking for whoever drops em a dime.
(should they have free speeech? well, not using my airwaves, for one.)
. the whores on K street are cheaper than the ones on Capital Hill or at GMU.

remember to treat Whores with respect and they will do the same in return.

Jill,

You would be wasting your time talking to Wally. I understand that the reality is, many people have prejudice against Sex Workers, so promoting their rights necessitates changing minds of people who currently oppose what you stand for.

But Wally goes beyond this. He has essentially advocated abuse and murder of Sex Workers, as well as the abuse and death of poor people---he uses the term "DC's ghetto dwellers", which says a lot about his mindset.

He represents a vile, twisted sort of viewpoint, and his comments make it quite clear that "reasoning" with him or trying to be "logical" won't have any effect---he espouses utter disdain for reasoning and logic, for facts that get in the way of his hatefilled, brutal ideology.

You can't reason with him---and he doesn't want you to. He wants you to die, to be brutalized and murdered. His type can only be confronted in ONE way---not respectfully, for there is no reason to show "respect" for such comments or views, as they inherently lack any form of respect for other people or their views. Coming from that position, Wally deserves and has earned only disrespect and scorn.

To even try to explain the facts and statistics, the simple basic humane responses, concerning this issue would be verbose---this is all well-known, and he has in fact shown evidence that he has access to (and knows about) the stats and facts, the rational arguments, and he just doesn't care. It stems not from ignorance of the issue so much as a base lack of concern or compassion for other human beings. Given the opportunity, Wally is of the type who will readily hate other people and advocate their abuse, rape, and murder. Just give him an excuse, and he'll eagerly spew his venom.

I've been covering prison/crime issues a lot lately for several media outlets, and the facts needs to get out there to those who lack the information and an understanding of the true costs---human and monetary---of this terrible system of injustice masquerading as law and order. In Michigan, for example, even the Prosecuting Attorneys worked with FAMM and other grassroots groups to overturn harsh sentencing laws---Michigan had the worst such laws, and these were overturned, every single one of them, by 2002. Many conservatives and "rightists" become disgusted and concerned over these issues once they are just made aware of the facts.

Wally is not such a person---and he should not be treated as such. I'm not dehumanizing him, as one might think---I see him as a living, breathing person who simply chooses to ignore truth and instead contribute to the brutality directed against those disinfranchised by our system. His humanity is, in fact, part of what makes me so much more enraged and sickened by him and his ilk.

So Jill, know that many of us are with you on this issue, and that those who aren't (by and large) CAN be won-over by logic, facts, and appealing to their simple human decency. Just don't mistake Wally for one of them.

Drew Poe

ld,
Are you trying to criticize me? If so, you need to understand that I'm not a libertarian. I know that it makes it easier on your mind to just classify me as being one of "these anarchists" so then you don't have to actually think. I don't voluntarily pay taxes. Government steals them from me and backs up their theft with a huge law enforcement apparatus. I have never called the cops for "help" and I never will, because they are not helpful. I have never run for office, nor do I know any anarchists who have. As far as the Universities go, I suppose you believe that anarchists shouldn't get an education. The sidewalks are paid for by taxes. I guess I shouldn't walk on them. I shouldn't use the roads either, right ld? I suppose I should just curl up in a ball and die. Wait, I can't even do that without government getting involved. Maybe I should go live on the moon. Wait, no, I'd have to get permission from NASA to do that and that would make me a bad anarchist, huh ld? Just because I am forced to live under a government hierarchy doesn't mean that I think it's justified. Where do you suggest I go to live where I can be free of all coercive government intervention, ld? They've got their claws over the entire globe. But judging from your response, you don't have even the slightest understanding of anarchism anyway. I do not want the money the government steals from me by force (taxes) to be used to build prisons and I don't know any anarchists who do. In fact, I don't consent to pay taxes at all. Government steals them from me by force, literally. You admit that the state system is one of oppression, yet you condemn those who are anti-state. Hmmm. You wrote, "religion is a filthy whore, all of them." Oh really? I know of some religions that do fit the description of whore, but I am very doubtful that you even are aware of every single religion on the face of the earth. Yet, your religious ignorance doesn't stop you from making a sweeping generalization condemning all religion. Sweeping generalizations are a sign of a lazy mind. Lazy minds love to be able to just say, leftists are all like this, anarchists are all this way, right wing people are all blah blah blah, Muslims are all such and such, and so on and so forth. If you want to understand people, generalizations will not do. Mental effort, among other things, is required. But you and Wally would rather just have everyone fit into a convenient category so then you don't have to think.

Dear Drew,

Actually to be honest, I don't anticipate Wally would take me up on the offer. He won't be willing to one engage in a respectful dialogue with an actual former sex worker nor is he probably capable of it . Given his posts it's obvious he fears sex workers especially ones who defy his stereotypes. His siding with serial killers and essentially advocating crime while claiming to be anti-crime demonstrates his inability to rationalize his own viewpoints. People like Wally usually only serve one purpose. Their hatred and illogic gives an opportunity for moderate response and a moderate portrayal of the discussion for others to read. So to be honest, any discussion with wally really essentially isn't intended for him but for others to be able to compare moderate pragmatism on a social issue vs the ranting of a zealot that sides with serial killers. Wally seriously needs to get educated about this issue before he expresses too many opinions as he reduces his own credibility over and over each time he posts.

This is funny. Everyone is getting all riled up. Wally is silly--he thinks that his taxes are actually going to the penal system--to prisons. Doesn't he know prisons are mostly privatized and that the workers pay for their own enslavement by doing assembly line work for big business? Doesn't he know that most of his taxes go to warfare? Doesn't he know that scum like him are the real crime? He gives himself a pat on the back for having nothing in his life to do but spy on other people and then nark them out. Get a life Wally. But first get a brain. Wally is scared because if sex workers rights are recognized he may have an increasingly difficult time finding something to do this weekend.

tariq---

. what i objected to in your post was the overgeneralization that governemnt is a whore, while at the same time, other essentially coercive systems like religion and educational hierarchices get a pass. i call this selective morality. to me they are all the same. (ever hear that phrase 'no god or master'----to me that is the ideal, but the reality at present there are a whole lot of authorities, gods, and masters which coerce everyone into obeying their orders, or their followers do. ..)

in addition to the idea that the government steals your money, i pointed out that alot of that money comes back to some people who take advantage of the services it pays for . so while they are complaining they actually are living off it. (the GMU econ dept has a bunch of people who talk this line).
also just as living under coercion doesnt mean you have to join the army or be a cop, if you dont like paying taxes you generally can cut down on this by earning a low salary and avoid income taxes. the people who are really big into cutting taxes are Bush's friends----they dont anyone taking their stolen loot.. you dont like gas taxes? walk or build your own roads.

one also shouldn't overgeneralize about peple in religions, government, colleges, or prisons. there is a diversity. most of these are split between 'progressives' and 'reactionaries'. the best and the worst people are in them.

some think you can 'reform' them (change sex work laws, make educational systems not ways to track people into a social hierarchy producing corporate junk and power, make religions not places where hate and intolerance is promoted, etc.

others think they should be abolished ('anarchists') and peple should be as little involved with them as possible. rather than reform your church or college, you start your own, even if it means you have to give up the perks of being recognized as a 'student' or a'person of god'..
instead of a nice campus or church, you just get a second rate place but one where you dont have to 'consent to be governed' by any hierarchy of god or education. plenty of people do this too if they dont like the government---they create a subculture in a ghetto and lay low. no preacher, PhD, or politician may respect them, but the feeling is mutual.. (the anarchist FAQ goes through some of these alternatvies, as do a variety of ot her books. its section on economics however is very out of date..).
alot of current anarchists however are so dependent on the state or other insitutions that they are like Jefferson preaching the horror of slavery from a plantation---they are against the state, but since they make a living off it, it would be a bit inconveniant to abolish. .

i personally am an agnostic.
there are good aspects to reform, and good aspects of refusing to play the games as they have been defined by authorities.
neither approach seems to be very powerful---you get a few reforms, you get a few institutions without alot of coercion, but it doesnt seem powerful enough to identify with as The One Truth. They need a few more Miracles before i believe the hype.

(the Truths are usually accompaanied by the claim that anyone who doesnt share the Truth is a Whore or Heretic who should be burned at the cross because or moral, physical, spiritual and intellectual inferirority.
almost every ideology---religious, political, educational---has many people who basically take this hierarchical view.
'only we are smart, chosen, blessed, pure, etc.'

since its impolite to call them slurs which leads to other things, the best thing to do is avoid them.
).

According to Line Dancing in order to be a consistent anarchist I have to cut down on paying taxes by "earning a low salary", (which government would still tax anyway) and "create a a subculture in a ghetto" (because according to Line Dancing the government does not coerce people who live in the ghetto). Great advice, Line Dancing. You have such a sound understanding of anarchism. (sarcasm intended)
God has never coerced me to do anything, but man-made government coerces me on a daily (yes daily) basis. Sometimes they blasphemously coerce me in the name of God, but such coercion is the work of power-blinded men and women, not God. My post was not an "overgeneralization". I will once again repeat with complete confidence in the truth of these words; government is a whore.

reform is good only as a means, not as an end. but typically, and almost always in the US govt, it is an end. an end that serves only to enslave those to him it was falsely intended to set free.

t-there are no consistant anarchists in states. you have my permission to earn any salary and pay any taxes you want. (if you dont iwont bust). choose your poison----collaborate with the government and its educational/economic system so that you benefit from and support its coercion in some ways (eg get a better job and salary,drive a car ) or collaborate less, move to some kind of ghetto or poverty situation and be coerced in a different way by being kicked around by the 'haves'.. the second case also can end up supporting the government, because then they can label you a problem which will be used to justify more police etc.

i certainly will let you judge my understanding of anarchism or anything else, but if you want to try to enforce your judgement it gets the same response as any other kind of policeperson---cop, moral, reigious, educational, or other. f-k off.

Hmm, let me see if I can sum up my point again for all of the bleeding heart criminal sympathizers here. It may seem heartless to you, but to the majority of people here in the US, it seems just right. Criminals, in this case prositiutes, who are committing criminal acts, in this case solicitation of prostitution, should not be granted any protections under the law for what happens to them while they are breaking it. The same applies for rapists, drug dealers, murderers, drug buyers, arsonists, etc... Prostitution is ILLEGAL just about everywhere in the US and abroad. I, and just about everyone I know, believe that by being out there on the street, what ever happens to them they bring on themselves. Deal with it. This is the dominant viewpoint of the vast majority of Americans, and is true for just about any criminal offense that is being committed on the streets, not just prostitution.

Many here would like to think that prostitution is a victimless crime. That, however, is about as far from the truth as one can get. Prostitutes attract excessive vehicular traffic to the communities in which they degrade themselves, often at odd hours of the night. This causes the people living in that community to lose sleep due to the noise that these prostitutes and their johns cause. Prostitutes attract pimps and drug dealers. Pimps and drug dealers make violence much more likely in the communities in which prostitutes walk the streets. In addition, like drug dealers, prostitutes fight over the choicest corners and streets on which to sell themselves, again adding to violence in what are usually quiet communities. And what of the used condoms, used drug baggies and used drug paraphernelia that are left on the ground by prostitutes? I suppose that the kids walking to school, or going to play in the communities where prostitutes peddle themselves don't count to criminal sympathizer leftists?

Get your facts straight. Prostitution is not only a detriment to any community in which it takes place, but illegal and immoral to boot.

Wally,
I suppose that you and your friends think it was "just right" when 200 years ago runaway slaves were shot dead, because technically they were "breaking the law". According to your logic, the English government was "just right" in killing American settlers when they declared independence from the English, because technically, they were "breaking the law" too. And I suppose you believe that Hitler was "just right" in slaughtering Jews because according to the "law" made by the government, Jews were in the wrong. You may believe that to a majority of U.S. citizens, it seems "just right", but I am not convinced, nevertheless, I'll take your point. What if a majority of people in the U.S. do think it's "just right" to turn a cold shoulder to the murder of prostitutes. Does that mean it's right? There was a time when the majority of U.S. citizens thought that slavery was "just right". So according to Wally's mislogic, slavery was "just right". I suppose you'd rather let mob rule decide what's right and wrong and throw out morality all together. You condemn the immorality of prostitution in one breath, yet you condone murder in the next. I smell hypocrisy. You call those of us who criticize you, "criminal sympathizer leftists". I suppose if you were alive 200 years ago you'd be calling us "nigger lovers" for speaking out against the whipping of disobedient slaves, who were "breaking the law". Either way, through your postings you have identified yourself as being on the side of rapists, murderers, mysogynists, racists, authoritarians, and human scum in general. I do believe that people can change and I hope that one day you will soften your wicked heart and start moving in a better direction.
Line Dancing,
I never have and never will try to "enforce" my judgment on you and I don't believe that any anarchist ever has. Your response that I should "f-ck off" is telling. What's your next move, are you going to punch me in the face? That'll teach me a lesson.

bush is more into preemptive stikes. IMC posters in general most likely wont throw punches first. i wait to be attacked before i punch and then i try to leave. the cases this happens are probably not people on the IMC.
i also try in public to avoid saying f-k off since this sets people off.
i hope wally will support the idea that given his concerns about sex workers attracting noisy polluting traffic that he will support banning excess traffic in general. close the beltway, ban commuters from dc etc.

Wally I thought about writing a response to your post but thought better of it. It's a waste of time. Being blunt, you don't know what you're talking about. You're posturing as a Rush Limbaugh wannabe. You weren't ever in prostitution, probably have never even been in any type of marginalized community and thus you're speaking via stereotypes and misogyny. My only thought on your posts Wally. Serial Killers aren't generally considered a valid avenue of social change. The men you want to harm prostitutes would be criminals also. Thus you have gained a criminal to stop what you believe is a criminal. Your logic is flawed by your lack of knowledge and unwillingness to look at a picture larger than your neighborhood. Wally, honestly if I were you I'd advocate a different point than serial killing being an answer to your social problems. Doing so only makes you sound ridiculous.

leighton

Tariq,

Slavery and prostitution have nothing in common. Slaves had no choice in what they did because their own people sold them into slavery to whites. Prostitution is a choice, unless you sniveling leftists are going to go back on what you have been saying about being a "sex worker," and how it is a choice. But anyway that is irrelevent. There is a difference in being forced to do something at the point of a sword (eg. slavery, english colonialism), and making a conscious choice to go out and disregard the laws the the majority have put into place as a means to bring some order to society. Prostitutes do make a conscious choice to go out and violate laws, based on the morals of the majority of the society that makes them. Having listened to some of the arguments that luke, Tariq,and others have made here, I have come to the following conclusions.

1. Since the government should not be able tell one what to do with their body, then, by extension, people should be able to go out an commit any crime they want to with their body, to include murder, rape, arson, etc... This, like most arguments of the left, smacks of a double standard, and hippocracy.

2. The community that prostitutes degrade themselves in doesn't matter. Since no one had the nuts, or ability to respond intelligently about the effects that prostitutes have on the communities where they break the law, I am going to assume that the lefties here think that they are irrelevent...to include the children that have to see the filth that prostitutes leave behind.

3. Rule by the majority is mob rule, accoriding to the left. Wrong, it is the only way to effectively rule a nation, while making sure that those not in power have some ability to make their voice heard, as in the democracy we live in here. But then again, I forgot that Cuba, North Korea, Communist China, The old Soviet Union, and various muslim dictatorships are the favored models of society on the left. I have a hint for you, in these societies, prostitution is illegal too....

Tariq, you seem like a very insecure and angry person. I have never siad that I advocate violent crime. However, that being said, I do believe that those who have violence committed against them while in the process of breaking the law, have put that on themselves, and should not be afforded the same protections as those of us who obey the law. However, I know that you will all piss and moan and while in your leftist manner about how no one should be able to tell someone what to do with their bodies, atc.......... just go back to point 1 here.

Merry Christmas, lefties, another year marginialized, irrelevent and powerless again for you all........hope you enjoy 4 more years of GWB.

tho i'm not convinced there's much point in entering this "discussion" since everyone seems to already have their minds made up, i guess i'm just a sucka. but i wanted to at least try to clarify some points that have been brought up.

about language: yes prostitutes is a word that is used by many including in the trade. when we speak of sex workers, we are talking about *all* who work in the sex industry, whether prostitutes, dancers, operators, escorts, porn actors, and so on. while prostitutes are usually the most visible and vulnerable to violence, they are not the only sex workers, and not the only ones who face violence.

in terms of violence, to me people who are doing something that doesn't hurt anyone else should not be faced with any more violence than anyone else. this is part of what we call a harm reduction model. by reducing violence against sex workers, for example, that can reduce stress in the lifestyle (and on the job) and maybe that will help people to take less high risk behaviors, like doing drugs and such. i guess i also operate from the premise that a living person, even if they are doing something i don't want them to be doing, is better than a dead person.

ok then there's choice. in our society everyone has to make money to survive. there is no choice about that. the only choice is in the field of work you choose to pursue. pursuing sex work seems a lot better to me than other means of getting money like robbing people randomly or something.

as for legality, many things are legal in one era and change in the next. until recently if if two men or women were having sex, that was illegal. so should they just accept gay-bashing? i don't think so. but i know some people do, and i think they are confused in terms of whether they actually value human life or not.

ok now to these points, as written by another reader/listener:
"1. Since the government should not be able tell one what to do with their body, then, by extension, people should be able to go out an commit any crime they want to with their body, to include murder, rape, arson, etc... This, like most arguments of the left, smacks of a double standard, and hippocracy."

well actually the line of reasoning doesn't quite go like that. i don't locate myself on the left, but i do agree we should allow people to pretty much do what they want with their body. however, let's look at why peopel are doing things? if women were valued more in our society and not viewed as sex objects, then maybe a lot of women in the sex industry wouldn't do the work they do. most of them do it simply because they make money at it. transgenders do sex work because no one will hire us. start changing society so women and transgenders and others are equal and i think you'd see prostitution disappear. no in terms of hurting other people, that's a different story, but it's also helpful to look at why people hurt each other. a lot of violence comes from disempowerment, or alternatively a sick sense of privilege (i'm thinking in paritcular of rape in that case). i think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who is intersted in decriminalization of prostitution who thinks murder is ok, for example.


"2. The community that prostitutes degrade themselves in doesn't matter. Since no one had the nuts, or ability to respond intelligently about the effects that prostitutes have on the communities where they break the law, I am going to assume that the lefties here think that they are irrelevent...to include the children that have to see the filth that prostitutes leave behind."

prostitution takes place in many different places. in d.c. it happens mostly in business districts which are lasrgely empty of people at nite and where no children live any time of day. i recognize this isn't always the case. but i hardly see how your argument holds up in a case like d.c. very rarely in fact are major strolls in residential "peaceful" or whatever it is you described communities as. as for traffic, give me a break. that's ridiculous. that's like saying that we shouldn't allow comunters unless they ride mass transit (which actually isn't a bad idea). traffic as an excuse to murder people? ok.... of used condoms and drugs bags? so littering, right? litering means you deserve to be killed? much of the actual sex of street sex work doesn't occur literally in the street, so used condoms are not really all that common. and drug paraphenalia is found in a lot of places, and sure we should get people to stop litering no doubt, but this is hardly a reason to kill someone. what were the other deliritous effects of prostitutes? oh violence. yes, thank goodness, you agree. let's work to end violence against sex workers. i don't see why you are against this concept wally, you seem to be for it...

"I have never said that I advocate violent crime. However, that being said, I do believe that those who have violence committed against them while in the process of breaking the law, have put that on themselves, and should not be afforded the same protections as those of us who obey the law. However, I know that you will all piss and moan and while in your leftist manner about how no one should be able to tell someone what to do with their bodies, atc.......... just go back to point 1 here."

ok here's a couple reasons why this logic is flawed. 1) it equates all law-breaking activities, which is just ridiculous. 2) i believe wally and others who profess it would in fact not hold an equal standard to everyone, such that if someone had assassinated ken lay while he was involved with all the enron illegality, i don't think you would be saying "that's one more off the streets" and lastly, but i know you don't care about this 3) these laws are made by certain people to benefit certain people. not all of us recognize these laws as valid. on the other hand we recognize human rights as universal and that everyone has them, no matter what, prostitute, prisoner, patriot or picketer.

i just hope the report helped to spawn dialogue elsewhere as well.

Wally, Since I have been a law abiding citizen for over a decade and am currently, let's say that I pop a cork over my past and injure and maim a client as he gets ready to hire a prostitute. Solicitation is a crime in most jurisdictions. So I'm assuming that you would be ok with me injuring and maiming a male client who was about to hire a prostitute?

Wally,
You're psychological assessment of me as being an insecure or angry person may or may not be true. Nevertheless, nothing you have written has proven me wrong. In fact, your words do just the opposite. Your terminology of equating intelligence with having "the nuts" is revealing. I suppose that with you, Wally, brains and testicles are the same thing. Maybe that's why you exhibit such mysogynist attitudes. Also, I suggest you do some reading up on Anarchism before you so ignorantly hurl derisions such as "leftist"at me. It seems that you feel that anyone who disagrees with your view that man-made laws are more important than life should just be brushed aside as being a mere "leftist". That way you don't have to actually examine your own assumptions. For someone who believes that "lefties" are "marginalized, irrelevant, and powerless", you sure are spending an awful lot of time trying (but failing) to prove us wrong.

Wally,

I hesitate to respond to you, as you probably just love attention, and that's why you make such outlandish, ridiculous statements. Still, I am of the opinion that we should NEVER let little rightwing bullies mouth off and get away with it. The way to confront extreme bullies is to CONFRONT them.

So, let's just look at your inane rant and see how easily it is ripped apart. First, let's get something clear, as you seem quite uninformed about what some of us like to call "facts"---prostitution is not illegal everywhere in the U.S. So, do you think it's okay for someone to beat and kill a prostitute in Wyoming, but not in Las Vegas?

Your comment that the left's arguments about personal freedom with one's own body leads to some absurd notion that it's therefore okay to "…commit any crime they want with their bodies…" is laughable. Does it utterly escape your understanding that when a person makes a decision to have sex with who they want to, it is not the same as deciding to kill someone? "Consent" is a word, you can even find it in the dictionary. Are you so mentally inept that you just can't grasp this simple concept? No, I suspect you're just being obtuse and irrational, lacking any real logical, intelligent reasoning to back up your extremely sick views. Isn't that right, Wally?

Let's continue. You'd like a response to the issue of those effects on the community you mentioned? Sure, Wally, I'll give you a response. I assume you mean beyond the simple answer, which is that your list is full of lies, distortions, and cliches. Condoms thrown all over the place? Needles littering the sidewalks? Too much traffic? All in residential neighborhoods where little babies are sleeping, too, eh?

Wally, I've lived in lots of cities all over this country, big ones and small ones; I've lived in some pretty rough neighborhoods; I've been to some of the poorest, most crime-ridden cities on both coasts. Prostitutes don't just wander around in family neighborhoods most of the time. In most cases, there are specific areas and streets where they stay, specific strips of road that are long and easy for lots of cars to travel up and down---as is necessary for business to be conducted adequately. Yes, sometimes you may see one or two prostitutes in an area with apartments or something nearby, but in most instances that's not true.

And they don't toss condoms all over the place, Wally. You can drive through an area frequented by prostitutes, and you won't see condoms all over the place. The sex tends to take place indoors in inside a vehicle, not on the sidewalk. And it tends to be a "turn-off" for potential customers if they pull up and see a woman is standing around a pile of used rubbers, Wally.

However, the big point here is that almost every problem you mention (those that are even remotely near reality, anyway) are a result of the very fact that prostitution, drug use, etc., are ILLEGAL. An example might suffice: there was once a thing called Prohibition, making alchohol illegal. What happened? Can you answer that, Wally? No? I'll tell you. It helped establish organized crime, that's what happened. It lead to extreme violence and murders, since making, distributing, selling, and consuming alchohol suddenly required an entire criminal enterprise to provide the needed coordination and protection for the business. And the drastic rise in costs meant it created an incentive to protect profits---how? That's right! Violence, Wally!

Of course, those with even a minor understanding of the facts surrounding these issues is aware of all this---even many in law enforcement feel that certain "victimless crimes" should be legalized and regulated, to remove all the REAL criminal elements that arise simply by the nature of sanctions against those activities. Also, the problems you mention were things like noise, traffic, litter, etc.---all things I see in great quantity near, say, a department store like Wal-Mart or a mall, which are often close to private homes. How about litter by McDonalds? What about living near an AIRPORT? All legal, all more of a problem in the ways you describe than any of the criminal activities in question. As for stolen car stereos and similar property crime, refer back to the paragraph immediately above about prohibition leading to criminal behavior. Toss in the problem of poverty, and there you have the real issue here, Wally.

Moving on, your comment that "Rule by the majority is mob rule, according to the left" is just another comment completely devoid of merit, Wally. Sure, we can discuss problems that may arise from a simple "majority rules" society, but generally there are few on the left who would make the statement you erroneously attribute to us. This is simply distortion and misrepresentation. So, let's see how we could respond in-kind. You, Wally, must believe in tyranny against minorities (numerical, that is---although your "ghetto" comment earlier suggests other sinister notions in that twisted brain of yours), since you advocate rule by the majority. Is that an accurate way to describe your views?

I'd also take exception with your claim that laws represent the will of the majority, anyway. They don't. When did you vote for the law against prostitution? Against drug use? You didn't, did you Wally? No, those people that are selected in elections every few years by about a quarter to half of the population make those laws, Wally. And usually, they don't win by 100%---usually, they win by around 5-10%. So the laws are made by the person selected by perhaps 20-30% of our population. 30% is not a "majority", a majority is defined as 50% plus one, Wally.

Let's take on your "…favored models of society on the left…" comment. It's amazing how many ridiculous, uninformed, completely false claims you can make. No, Wally, the left doesn't generally see those states as "models of society". The typical rightwing lie that we are all Stalinists is…well, a big lie. Most of us despise all forms of repression, including in states that falsely claim to be socialist. The nearest example you mentioned would be Cuba, and while there is much legitimate good about Cuban society, it is also a single-party, single-ruler nation, which I and lots of others oppose. We make no excuses for those aspects, and certainly don't see it as a "model society".

You say, "I have never said that I advocate violent crime." Let's review your earlier comments. You seem to suggest the following: prostitutes deserve murder and brutality ("let them suffer"); it's a good thing they are maimed or killed ("one less on the street"); they shouldn't be protected from violence ("they should not be afforded the same protections"); better they die than even go to jail, especially those in poor neighborhoods ("ghetto dwellers kill each other…then my tax dollars don't go to housing him…").

Wally, this is all ADVOCATING VIOLENT CRIME. You excuse it, you say it's deserved and shouldn't be prevented, and it's best they die rather than cost tax dollars in jail. If you're going to make such insane proposals, at least have the spine to admit what they mean, Wally. Have the guts to take the heat for what you said and what it all ends up leading to. But therein lies the problem---bullies DON'T have spine or guts.

Drew Poe

I have a question: Is Wally really Bill White? I'd like to know if there is any evidence to back that up. I've already seen the person posting as "Wesley Cook" sort of "unmasked" as Bill White, but I'd like to know if the claim about Wally being the same individual is factual.

The tone and basic style of the two is somewhat similar, as is Taxpayer's, so I've actually been trying to figure out if they are all the same person. If so, it is certainly a sort of coordination and manipulation of this site. If it's incorrect or cannot be proven, then it's not a good idea to make the assertion if it's just a "hunch". I hope someone has info on this, as it actually is a bit important to know if that sort of manipulation is going on here.

Drew Poe

this is interesting sociology/group process. reminds me of 'can smoking occur in bars'. i think we can all thank wally for serving as a provacative debating partner. maybe he could get the afternoon shift on pfw. (course he might attract some rough trade and only leave one time).

the whole issue of do you need a government to stop murder-----will people murder in its absence, and if there aren't cops, who will, and where the line is where a person's liberties end and imposition begins (eg whether selling sex infringes on someone else, which is similar to whether having a judgement is at all similar to enforcement, or putting up a religious symbol, burning a cross or flag, wearing a scarf, or doing the 'dont ask dont tell' policy etc. ) , and also how you make rules (by a majority, consensus, or other voting system), and then whether you are correct to impose them on others or if that is too taxing.

i imagine the IMC is read by 99% of dc area people, so shortly there should be a vote/poll/consenus result on these issues.

also the work issue---why people do anything such as sex work. (not mentioned exactly is the international sex slave trade, though abduction is part of that). and besides why peple work, why people demand certain sorts of work. (eg 50 angels to purify the air by flapping their wings each day for 8 hours). and how you decide whether someone tells you they are happy what they are doing is true, as opposed to really wanting to be deprogrammed into the Truth.. 'pretty please, can i pay some more taxes'.
or how i once thought i was a leftist, but realizedf later the truth that i am actually right. by Occams' razor, its a simpler theory, by 2 letters. in science, simpler theories are preferable and that is why i am right.

one can also imagine a workless economy where people just have 'friends' and have sex with them, and even things like 'food', 'education', etc. could be taken out of the economic system, so long as one has access to them (one has to either own or abolish property so all work is not part of GDP).. or, once could view 'workers' as 'free natural resources' like the slaveowners did. god gave them, just like air and water.

the current system requires specialiZation so it can create both complexity and hierarchy (when things get commodified then its automatic---do the stop n shop thing or majority rule rather than consensus---so you are more efficient). so there a variety of kinds of workers. this also yeilds hierarchy (eg if you decide its easier following the leader/pack, then you get a government thing.)
so its a rough tradeoff. if matter-energy in the universe is conserved, then its exact. why it moves then is the open question unless as Julian Barbour argues the universe is actually timeless, just stupid people dont realize it. or it could be a chaotic Poincare -nietchze trajectory of eternal return, only it hasnt happened yet.

as an aside, on the web there is a 'letter from Chomsky' on The Bunker, where he permits anyone to do any politics they want, breaking some taboos, and also says he doesnt think the us is fascist, but has those tendencies. so there are semantic disagreements. if not syntactic.
also WOL had a nice show pointing out that it may have been a lie that a 747 hit the pentagon, as came up before. the argument here wasnt that you couldnt see any plane there, but rather that it was a 757. the 747 had been flown out to sea with the passengers by the cia and dumped.
i gurss if one is going to fly a plane into the pentagon it should be the correct number, as computed by the anlysts at the cia.

Bill White, no. I post only under this name, and when someone else posts under it, I call them on it. You see, Bill White is a RACIST, which I am not. Bill White, from what I understand, also hates law enforcement in general. I do not. I see racial diversity as a good thing, and law and order as a good thing. However, I do not have any sympathy whasoever for those who go out and make a conscious choice to break the law. In my mind, and the minds of those I know (on both sides of the political fence), people who consciously go out and make a decision to break the law deserve what happens to them as a result of the decision that they make. I look at the government as a reflection of what the majority of people want in society. Law enforcement professionals are merely an extension of the government, making that the views of the majority on crime are are enforced. Look at DC, for example. DC's laws are a joke, as they relate to all types of crimes. Hell, DC is the only place I know where murderers routinely get less than 10 years for their crimes. From research, and from talking with the police that work in my area of SE, I have some idea of why DC's laws are so lax. I won't get into this now, because I have already gone out on a sidebar on points I want to make, but I would welcome any questions on this matter. Perhaps if some of you spoke to the police in DC and the surrounding areas like they were as human as you, and with a little respect, you would understand the realities of thier job as I and others do. But this is all beside my point...

Anyway, look at the government as a moderating force that keeps the lawless elements in our society from becoming regional warlords. I know that many on the left, anarchists in particular, would like to believe that a soiety without any laws or order is utopia. You are wrong, and I will tell you why. People are not good at heart, as many on the left believe. Deep down, people are still animals, with a thin veneer if ego and superego covering the animal interior of their psyche. Underneath all of what we like to call our "civilization," we have all of the wants and desires of animals, and the wants and desires that our intelligence. Ask just about anyone on the street what their greatest wish is. I guarantee that less than 5% answer with something like, "World peace," or "harmony between races," or "more money for the third world," or anything like that. Most will say something like, "I want to be rich," "I want to be president," "I want to be king," and the list goes on and on... Why do you ask? The same reason that people step on their friends for a promotion, or people in lawless third world nations gather under warlords and kill off anyone who opposes them. People, deep down, want power, wealth, and an easy life. Why they want that is a little more complicated, but I think it is ultimately because people are evil, backstabbing, and savage underneath it all. Look at Somalia. No laws, no order, should be a leftist and anarchist paradise, yes? Guess again...poeple starving and childern being recruited into militias to fight against opposition warlords so that the can eat and live...people starving every day. Yeah, sounds like paradise to me....yeah right. Government, and laws are what keep this country from becoming like Somalia, and all of the other lawless societes out there in the world.

Now lets focus on the issue at heart here, prostitutes. From the posts I have read, it seems like many people here want to portray prostitution as a glamerous way of life. Really? Go take a look at New York Ave., NE. Strung out crackheads selling themselves to fuel their addiction. Do I feel sorry for them? Yes. But do I advocate special protections for them, or the allocation of resources to make sure that they are kept safe? No. Why? Because they are breaking the law just be being there, the same laws that are meant to keep society more safe and orderly. Now some of you are going to say, "Those are not the prostitutes that I am talking about!" I got news for you....the majority of prostitutes out there in the US are like this. Furthermore, look at the areas that they service their johns in, and you will find empty crack bags, used condoms, used needles, bodily fluids, etc... Only a small majority of prostitutes in this country are the "glamerous" ones that most here think of, buts lets take a closer look at them, shall we?

Lets start out with their pimps. Yeah, pimps, the ones who beat them, and commit random acts of violence where they operate in order to expand thier turf. Hmmm, gunshots going off at night isn't a big deal? What if that stray gunshot hits you while you are walking to the Metro? Still not a big deal? This type of thing happens more often that you think, but it usually involves stabbings or beatings. You know, all of those crimes that never make the paper.

Well, I will have to continue this post some other time, as I have an engagement right now to attend, but I will come back and finish later. And if this seemed somewhat more disoprganized as usual, then my appologies. I really hate trying to type when I have limited time. Ta Ta for now, lefties.

Not all sex workers are strung out crackheads-amd almost NO male sex wrokers have pimps. There is no fundamental difference in sex work that says women must have a pimp, and plenty refuse.

The reason you see such a high percentage of crackheads on the street is that enemy action has driven most other sex workers into bars, classified ads, or the Internet to meet customers.

I've got news for Wally, etc-I know a HELL of a lot more about this sort of thing than he does!

Wally,
I must correct you. Anarchists are not on the left or right. Also, anarchists do not believe that a society without order is utopia. They simply believe that mutual aid is more prevalent -- not only in human nature but in nature in general, as science is demonstrating more and more -- than is "survival of the ruthless". Human beings, when accustomed to freedom and personal responsibility, are very capable and likely to behave respectfully toward one another. Somalia has nothing to do with anarchism. The chaos going on there, and in other parts of the world, is related to government, not anarchism. The great majority of crimes committed in this world are committed by governments and their friends the big corporations. Your attempt to use Somalia as an argumet against anarchism reveals your ignorance of what anarchism is. I suggest you do some more reading before you attempt to discredit a social and political philosophy that you know very little about. Nature is not chaos. In nature, one can find amazing order, all without cops and judges and presidents and buraeucracies and prisons. I disagree with your assessments that humans are inherently bad at heart and that animals are also inherently monstrous. Nature is better than that. It is true that animals aren't all sitting in a circle telling camp fire stories and laughing together, but you have overlooked the much good within not only the human soul, but in nature as well. I argue that atrocious behavior has more to do with social factors than it does with any inherent genetic traits. Human beings have free will. We are not doomed to just kill each other off unless we decide to be so doomed. Our peace is not dependent on government. In fact, the majority of war and chaos in the world is the direct result of governments. Of course, they assure us, it's for OUR OWN GOOD.
But let's take your point that humans are inherently bad. If that's the case, then why on earth should they have power or authority? Why would any government set up by inherently evil people be good.
Either way, government is at best, an unnecesary evil. Unless you can prove to me that it is justified for someone to rule over me without my consent, then I will continue as an anarchist. Why is it justified for me to be bound by laws, made by people whose authority I don't consent to? I didn't even vote for them, yet they are supposed to be justified in binding ME with THEIR agreements?! The argument that I will go crazy and kill everyone if there is no government to stop me, is false. Law or no law, I don't steal. Law or no law, I don't kill. I don't need a government to "keep me in line". I can keep myself in line. In the right conditions, the same is true for all people. I agree with Leo Tolstoy, the great anti-statist, that government cannot improve the moral nature of man, but rather, the tendency of government is to do the opposite, turning even some of the best men into murderers.

Tariq,

See my last post on Somalia. I have been there, and have seen first hand the suffering and injustices people will commit in the name of power and profit. There are those who have better control over their inner needs and wants than others. These are usually the people whoo ulitmately stake out the laws that govern the rest of us. If you don't believe that in a scoiety without government, you would be free to do whatever you want, and everything would be just peachy, I have something for you to think about. Look at the people who you see walk by you every day. I guarantee, that one of them, given the weapons, and followers, would have you as a footsoldier or forced laborer, or some other lesser capacity in order to further their gains in the absence of government, law and social order. They would probably use food, or your family's lives as "motivation" to boot.

walleye says he thinks people who break the law get what they deserve, and that he is 'antiracist'. you gotta fly, you get caught.

well, the only reason 'antiracism' is acceptable (eg race mixing) and legal is because back in the day some people broke the law (freedom riders, lunch counter boycotters, school integrtionists, bus riders, underground railroaders...)

you have to break some eggs to get an omelette, as they say. even the usa was started as an illegal act. and consider all those fornications in the past. my oh my.

i guess the Wally's should avert their eyes and not read history, because its filled with examples of people breaking laws and doing other things which are hurtful to the sensitive person with great respect for Law and Order, and who dream of armageddon or its local variants (somalia, everyday murder or witch hunts..)
matrix movies and other civilized entertainments. bet.

-----------------------

hopefully with enough police, and by using the IMC to teach respect for them, we can stop all law breaking from now on.

(it might make things easier too---now we have to remember to be antiracist, antihomophobic, antisexist, anti-littering, anti-drunk driving etc. If heretics hadnt sinned against the pope and invented science, and women hadnt demonstrated, etc we would be just like back in the day----no condoms for example.. We'd just have one law, god's law, against sin. Wouldnt have to memorize the label for the current pc ethic, the whole bill of rights. hire all these lawyers.
maybe we can repeal some laws, and just live simply like in the past.
'you f-k with me, and you die'.
all this due process and civility stuff is so boring.
the wild wild west really should be better than the ritualistic east---isnt that why they hate us?
southeast, southwest, northeast northwest.)

---------------------

humans are animals, and laws are made by animals , so you really cant expect them to behave towards them other than as animals.
animals do have a primitive sense of morality, though it varies by specie.

i hear the Queen of England's dawg killed her other dawg, just like biggie/tupac, god save her. the brits do seem to be a lower specie than the americans, so you would expect this. they evolved from chimps..
maybe cuz they cant get any bananas, like Ramanujan, they act so violent. they are out of their element and turn on each other like rats in a cage.

(Ramanujan---the India inidan math guy----just died fter showing up from India to give all his equations to the colonizers. the brits did send his mom $25 or so for a statue. 'he died, thanks. here is something for supper. got any more kids?'. his equations now are in the net, almost certainly , so in Bangladore they are now ripping at least the descendents of the colonizers off, using the ex-master's tools.)

animals like guppy fish for example will share duties defending from some other fish; but then some also are Immoral and will cheat on each other's mates (in fact, they do this by going in 'drag' so they can get close to the ladies, and then suddenly reveal the ruse.)

Chomsky goes through all this in his disputes with other cognitive scientists. 'where is the line between a really stupid animal and the slightly less stupid ones that live at MIT? ' when is a mouse not a dog not a chimpanzee not a high school grad not a mccarthur genius? which ones can we experiment on? which ones sleep out in the cold, which ones in projects, and which ones in suburbs. its a scientific question. you can test them to see if they can run through a maze to develkop a moral hierarchy..

where do you draw the line between prositution and mariage?
make it a law, and marry a happy hooker.

--------------------


animals like the mad cow virus experiment on humans, while the reverse also occurs. so they have different laws. which is right?
since i'm no leftist, i know i am.

the internet, which likely is its own be-in, experiments on whoever, like Odysseus, falls for its siren call.

once you got that moral or legal line, you gotta border, and a country, and a law. then you defend it to the death . and others break them, or cross them as illegal immigrants by your definition.

-----------------------

animals evolve too, like the laws and borders. walleye can have sodomy today if s/he wants to, without breaking the law. but not with a trout, and not in public. but tommorrow maybe that;'ll be ok, or even required to show one is a good citizen. 'salute the flag, get down'.

so as animals, sex workers can get out of the cages their fellow aminals construct. they can run like the slaves. Mad cow, AIDS, or the flu can get tired of being shared so widely, and just stop transmission by taking over its host and eliminating it. as its own property, it can stop being used.

mayeb electrons will go on genersl strike and refuse to transmit messages of the overseers.

--------------

also sex workers could vote, and have the Convention center assigned to them for conventions regarding employment. this should perhaps be called the Convent Center---some people like to do nuns. so transgressive.

animals basically are amoral, and make the morals and rules up as they go. and, they develop new borders, countries, and polices. languages too. they police the states of mind------keep those memes out, guys.. its sense or sh-t.

---------------------

anyway, perhaps starting today, we should turn over a new leaf. break no laws, and admire the perfection of what we have. every m-fer behave nice from now on. a new year's revolution.

but laws possibly are made to be broken . spontaneous symmetry breaking as they say.
when your chickens come home to roost, they have eggs which hatch. (perhaps with a little therapy the chicks can be taught to just chill out and be happy until they get hardboiled by life,and firmly commited to their shell.

become a stereotype)

( breaking laws is pretty generic. same in science or 'natural law' actually---most of the scientific laws have 'exceptions' which means they are broken in some cases; eg Newton's laws fail at high velocities and small sizes
nowadays, most reasonably literate and informed people are wondering if Einstein's relativity, or Lorentz invariance, is going to be found to be broken, as suggested by the new quantum gravity formulations. so far no violations have been found, but i dont read the IMC everyday myself.

if it is broken, then as Einstein helped develop nukes and the internet, this means in 2 weeks or so (whenever y'all get to it), we will have a 'post-IMC' something new and different. new moderation policy. '2 drinks'. Probably one will apply the transhmanist idea popular at GMU, so each IMC poster will simply be one cell in a social superoogranism mutually aiding other cells to create a mega-blogBorg. These big Blogs will then be doing the same blah blah blah be-ins been do-in through history.

Talking to electons it turns out is just as boring as talking about elections. and, 'dont make no sense either').

---------------------

Jefferson also suggested maybe people need a revolution every once in awhile to get a new constitution. any takers? just indian givers.

---------------------

as for the idea that people want to be rich, a king, etc. this is only because they heard of these things. others might actully say they want to be drunk, high, a basketball player, a musician, in florida etc. These choices also exist for various reasons, mostly learning.

the idea of being president, i heard this in elementary school that anyone could be, so maybe i could try this. i havent seen it in the help wanted ads yett, so i'll have to keep trying. or, maybe people could get organized, vote me in, and post it on the IMC so i can move into my crib. 'paint the white house black' will be my first act. sound like an issue that will beat Bush? anyway, organize, and let me know when i won. also, dont foget to vote!!! especially the anarchists. i'll invite y'all for a PETA with hummus and burger cook out too, made by chef ramsey theory, and we can hear blowback do mad cow while you eat crow.

---------------------------

as for the idea that nature is good or monstrous, this is that old classical anarchist thing (kropotkin). animals use mutal aid---like when the wolves hunt down the lil cute bambis. or in nyc, where police shot one guy 50 times. we help each other out. crips, bloods, home invasions. et's.
or the chimpanzees do pair bonding, by hunting down lil monkees and sharing them.

this is why the 'wally's' and others start to worry, because they imagine when the 'anarchists' take power they will use mutual aid and hunt down the non-anarchists. and share, in a circle, just like chimps eating monkees.

i've never had walleye myself.

( of course just as chimps are not monkees so you can eat them so vegan anarchists can still eat nonanarchists because these are non-sentient beings, by definition; only anarchists feel anything which is real. they are like bill clinton, who can feel your pain when the government robs you of property.

non-sentient beings are so insensitive they dont even notice. )

-------------------------

this idea works well with religious ones---if you deal with Higher Powers then down to earth issues of power and authority dont seem important.

Toltstoy for example, had a plantation with loyal serfs, where he wrote books and sold them while admiring the humble people who grew the food, etc. If he was really a believer in 'mutual aid' he might have avoided living like Jefferson, and instead invited in the serfs to see how to 'self-mange' the operation. (This way you wont need a Howard Zinn to write up the stories of the oppressed; instead they can DIY. ).
but who wants to invite the noble savages in, when you can admire them from a distsnce?
who wants to run with the wolves, when they are such cute puppies seen from afar.

---------------

its interesting also as an example of consitancy that Kropotkin eventually moved back home to Russia (maybe to his feudal property?) and endorsed his government's right to defend itself from Germany in ww1. here we have an anarchist defending statist action; a lesser of 2 evils.

Similarily, this is why people like Chomsky, who has called himself an anarchist, though this is disputed by some anarchists (its that issue of 'who is a real christian' thing) supported Nader last time, and laments 'rollback' such as cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations which support the welfare state.
of couse the 'anti-tax' people would say thee taxes are theft, and even if the government steals it from businesses and peple who can afford it----people who got it by employing other people---- its still wrong, and not a lesser of 2 evils.

one can also remember another view, of Proudhon (the first anarchist in the formal sense of the term, in political philosophy) who was also a sexist, antisemitic, and probably racist ( (he thought the slaves should first get civilized before speaking in class or church) and also anti-religious----noone is all bad---- who said 'property is theft'.
in his view, taxation would be an act of governemnt, so its illegitimate. but then property is theft too and illegitimate.

------------------------

in sum, people may be inherintly bad, and that is why they have power and authority, and aint sh-t can be dont about it. thats what bad people do.
either that or its not inherint and they just act that way. if so as KRS-1 put it 'you must learn'.
then you can go into what is 'learnable' (eg what are the implications of Gold's Theorem, Infomation and Control 1969---look it up on the web).

Well, Wally's at it again. Despite his attempts to "moderate" his tone somewhat, his previous comments remain in all their splendor, and his real feelings on these issues has been made pretty clear.

It's interesting that he has not tried to address a single point raised to counter all his inane claims so far. He is just pretending not to notice, I suppose. Easier than trying and failing to argue against information he can't counter, to move on and attempt another shot at making the same inane points. So, let's look at his NEW comments, and see how they hold up. Not very well, just like everything he's said so far.

Regarding racism, he says "I am NOT". Well, earlier comments about "ghetto dwellers", who he says he'd prefer die than go to jail and waste his "tax dollars", are not exactly in keeping with the claim that he loves racial diversity. Maybe he just meant in PRISONS or FUNERAL PARLORS.

Wally says, "I look at government as a reflection of what the majority of people want", ignoring of course the points about how the government is made up of individuals who consistently inact laws and take positions opposed to what the majority want---and the government is elected consistenly by around a quarter of the population, so it can hardly be said to represent the majority's wishes. This was pointed out already, yet Wally just didn't understand it, I guess.

Let's look at Wally's comments about the left and anarchists, whom he says "...believe society without any laws is a utopia." He also says, "Look at Somalia. No laws, no order, should be a leftist and anarchist paradise, yes?" So extremely uninformed. Wally should try not to discuss ideologies he doesn't know anything about. Or nations he knows nothing about, either, despite his claims to have been there.

Does Wally have any knowledge about what anarchism is? Does he know anything about the political ideology behind it? Does he really think the anarchist view is simply "get rid of laws"? His understanding of it seems limited to what he heard in a Sex Pistols song. There is much more to the ideology, but I guess we can't expect Wally to show a grasp of complex political thought, considering his lack of a grasp on reality in general.

Also, his comments about Somalia show quite clearly his utter ignorance of any historical understanding of how conditions developed there, the roll of the arms trade, the economic issues involved---in short, everything that led to the situation he tries to describe. Trapped in his narrow, simplistic little view of the world, he tries to equate the conditions that developed from multiple prolonged crises in Somalia with anarchism, which arrives at a specific form of society through a pretty specific form of social struggles. The attempts at political analysis in Wally's posts are, to put it mildly, childish and devoid of merit.

Wally also tries his hand at psychology and sociology. Consider these comments:

"People are not good at heart"; "Deep down, people are all animals..."; "ego and superego"; "People...want power, wealth, and an easy life".

Ah, the inanity never ceases in Wally-World. First, the most obvious point might be that humans have been on this planet for millions of years, in one form or another. Even for "modern humans", biologically speaking, society as it is structured today has taken up the MINORITY, the VAST minority, of our time on this Earth. How can the desires and mindset Wally tries so hard to explain be inherent in our nature, when for most of our existence those things didn't really even exist?

And this whole thing about people being bad, because we're animals---hmmm, add zoology to the long, long list of things Wally knows nothing about. The idea that greed, murder, terrorizing, etc. are instincts is laughable. Those are elements that arose explicitly from social structures. Find another animal species that practices mass murder, torture, hording of resources to the detriment of the majority of its kind, all as general aspects of that species' nature. I don't mean an example of one or two of a certain animal doing something similar to one of these things, I mean an entire species practicing against one another in this manner as a consistent method of interaction, as humans do and as Wally says is all part of our "animal" nature, throwing in some absurd "ego and superego" comments to try to fancy up his post, as if that could possibly help it.

Most people on this planet live not in well-off conditions, but in the lower end of things. They don't practice any of what Wally describes. That starved, poor, oppressed people will scramble for things on those rare occasions when things are temporarily available to them has nothing to do with "animal instincts"---it has EVERYTHING to do with artificial social conditions constructed in a manner precisely counter to human nature, and nature itself in general. And, just to mention it, notice how he equates "animal" nature with not being good-hearted, like "animal" equals "evil".

Moreover, if what Wally said were even remotely true, there wouldn't BE any law and order, especially since he makes the distinction that "animal" means NOT GOOD. The majority of people in pretty much every single nation on the planet live with less, for the benefit of a very select few. If we were indeed all animals driven by simplistic greedy, power-mad instincts, the large numbers of poor and lower-middle class would have risen and torn this world to shreds to get what they wanted long ago, and the billions and billions of us in those classes outnumber the ruling class by so much, nothing could've stopped us---IF we were driven by instinctive, animal drives to commit mayham as soon as we get the chance. THAT is what a few billion no-good, power-hungry, greedy, murderous animals would do.

Now, who said prostitution was "glamorous"? Please, the leftist or non-rightist, or non-sociopathic-rightwing-racist-nutcase who said that, raise your hand.

Hmm, seems nobody made that claim. In fact, looking back at the previous posts, I don't see anything that even suggests we are saying it's a glamorous lifestyle. Just a little of the ol' misrepresentation, eh?

On to Wally's comment "But do I advocated special protection for them...", refering to prostitutes. Well, first of all, protection from serial killing or rape is not "special" protection, so the statement is more of the same ridiculousness from Wally.

But, there's more to it. See, Wally doesn't just oppose "special" protection for them---he opposes ANY protection for them. In fact, he doesn't just oppose ANY protection for them, he explicitly stated he PREFERS they GET harmed and killed. Remember? Reread his comments: "Let them suffer", "one less on the street", "should not be afforded the same protections", and so on.

So Wally's attempts to put a kinder, gentler face on his ugly, twisted views is disingenuous at best. It's flat-out lying at worst. Wally, don't try to pretty up your language now. You made yourself quite clear already. Beaten, raped, murdered prostitues are a GOOD THING in your mind. MURDERED "ghetto dwellers" are better than living ones in your warped ideology. Yes, we know EXACTLY what you mean, so don't try to fudge on it now.

Drew Poe

i just want to point out that wally's main concern, and it's a valid one, is the violence that surrounds illegal street sex work. but that's what the day was about: ending violence. i'm excited that we agree.

as an aside i would say 'anarchists and leftists' are actually similar to christians, muslims, democrats, republicans, americans etc.

any caricatures, criticisms, etc generally have some merit because there is NO general agreement on most of the ideas which supposedly define these groups. check out the litterture on the topic.

marxists, anarchists, democratic party members, greens, republicans, etc actually are like 'white/black/yellow' races. or sexes. they often are more similar to members of the other 'identity' than to ones within the group.

anarchists in general seem to follow the christian model, in which you have the catholics, protestants, subsects, splinters (mormons)etc. within the general heading of people who want to 'abolish the state' you can find people who may espouse just about anything, just as M L King is not the same as Pat Robertson or randall robinson or operation rescue or dorothy day. (i personally have difficulty telling them apart however, not being an expert.
i can tell the difference between a norway rat and wood rat, a flying squirrel and a red squirrel, which others cant.. they just kill them all; smething to do.).

this may be one reason why its best to be 'antiauthoritarian' or 'independent' so that you dont have to end up apologizing for people in the group you are a member of , or have to say Yes Sir No Sir when one of the more esteemed members lays donw the party line of what We Believe and You Must Do, or end up in endless fights over what christians, anarchists, marxists, capitalists, etc believe or can do.

(in todays Post there is an article on a woman Muslim who is in a big fight over whether she can pray in her Mosque.
which islam is correct?
the same thing happens in most of the ideologies.

as the Pilgrims had to spit from the UK for the 1st british invasion, anti-authoritarians saw reform of ideological religion unreformable and set out for freedom.

know any vacant land? also, for Thanksgiving we'd like the menu now so we have time to decide what to Order. )
---------------

in fact its nice to considwer that if people just dropped their identities, and ideologies, and just spent more time on figuring out what these might be rather than promote some product developed by McDonalds, Kropotkin, Marx or Nader, then one might not have the kind of social evolution now occuring.
let the ideologues sell their own product. i am not a sales rep.
(of course, depending what they pay, it might be a discussion. it sounds like the Baathists do pretty good, as do the Bushies.)

t