In a region in Florida where a newspaper for which I write columns is published we can witness a rather direct confrontation between some citizens and the nanny state. The case reportedly involves the “owners of two local escort services — Destin’s Angels and Florida Dream Girls—[who] are facing possible prison time on charges they used escorting as a front for other crimes,” the State Attorney’s Office says. “These escort agencies were fronts for prostitution,” Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman Michele Nicholson told reporters. Story here.
The details are not important here, although matters are complicated by the fact that in addition to the escort services being offered, a raid on some of the establishments also yielded illegal drugs. But even that is beside the point since the drugs were not injuring anyone apart perhaps from those who used them. So the bottom line is that the local authorities were flexing their muscles by going after a bunch of criminals without any victims.Of course this kind of case is legion in America and has been for decades. The supposed leader of the free world, to which people come from all corners of the globe to escape oppression and harassment, is itself, in fact, engaged in plenty of oppression and harassment. America’s crime rate is embarrassingly high precisely because its criminals include thousands and thousands of men and women who have done nothing more vile than to sell, buy, and consume substances that are no more dangerous than ordinary alcohol and have engaged in sexual liaisons that leave a lot to be desired from the point of view of romance and family values.
OK, it should really not be argued that prostitution is nice or that people ought to enjoy themselves by means of drug abuse. What is worth pointing out, however, is how utterly sad it is that our lawmakers and law enforcers place so little trust in citizens who are facing the temptation to do such things and who think they have the moral authority to interfere.
Let’s face it—there are always temptations awaiting us all to get involved in immoral, wrongheaded, imprudent, self-destructive or salacious undertakings. But in a free society people are expected to deal with these without some dictator, tyrant or even well-meaning nanny ordering them to desist.
Sure, there is a long tradition in most places around the globe to ban acting on such temptations, to lock up those who provide the temptation and those who yield to it. This is because, sadly, too many people throughout human history haven’t become convinced that personal responsibility is better than paternalism when it comes to dealing with adult human beings.
The plain fact is, however, that in a truly free country resistance to temptation would come from the individual, his or her family, friends, service organizations, churches, etc., not the law (the task of which is to secure our rights, not to run our lives). That even Americans can dispute this just shows how far we all are from fulfilling the true meaning of the revolution that created their country, one that rests on the idea that everyone has the unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, among others. A serious appreciation for what that means would inform us that however morally objectionable some conduct is, free men and women may not be stopped from engaging in it other than by advice, urging, ostracism and other peaceful means. Only if conduct violates rights, may it rise to the level of a crime!
Yes, this is not the greatest incursion on our liberties we find in our country but it is nonetheless one that needs to be stopped. And if it cannot be stopped because of the stubbornness of all those who just have to meddle in other people’s lives by means of coercive laws and regulations, at least some of us need to point out just how contrary to the sprit and letter of freedom such policies are. Then, perhaps, after the full implication of the principles of freedom become more widely appreciated, public opinion and policies may develop that do not treat people as wards of government, infants in need of nannies to run their lives.
In other words, then, perhaps, freedom will truly reign.
{ 18 comments }
I would agree with Tibor that “victimless” crime laws may not be the most egregious violations of liberty, as the number of people affected are relatively small compared to the population at large. However, it’s far from a trivial matter and it’s certainly a much, much more serious issue than ordinary nanny state matters like seat belt laws.
Victimless crimes are the major source of the huge prison population in the US, the largest in the world. Enforcement of these kinds of laws has also been the major cause of the growth of paramilitary policing in the US over the last 25-30 years, and is in fact the foundation of the modern police state.
I agree with those conservative-libertarians who argue that those libertarians who have promoted libertarianism as the the party of drugs, prostitutes, pornographers, bookies and the like have made a strategic error. These matters have to be understood within their broader context. At the same time, the persecution of these populations by the state is simply the modern version of similar attacks on Jews, witches, heretics, pagans, religious or ethnic minorities in the past. I think that to claim it is anything less is to obscure the issue.
Living in the inner city for the past 20 years, I’ve come to know people from these sectors of society fairly well and, as a general rule, they are as sympathethic to my own anti-state radicalism (some would say extremism) as anyone I have ever met. The reason for this is that, more than most other people, they have seen the true nature of the state up close and in person. They know what’s really going on. You don’t have to explain it to them over and over like you do with many others.
Keith Said, “I agree with those conservative-libertarians who argue that those libertarians who have promoted libertarianism as the the party of drugs, prostitutes, pornographers, bookies and the like have made a strategic error.”
Sometimes this is intentional. Every time people here start to become sympathetic to libertarian ideas, the media brings on some loud mouth that promotes harmfull drug use or prostitution. It is a strategic error for the libertarians to ignore it and leave a gap to be filled by the loudmouths.
These are all important social issues, and what we should be doing is insisting that these problems be legalized so that they become brought out in the open where society can address them. The LP should be proactive about saying these things are indeed wrong, but that goverment laws just drive them underground, and turn drug lords and gangsters into millionaires, and encourage drug users to become prostitutes, and predators to rape them. Because they do, by making them legal – we can bring them out in the open and solve them, by making them illegal we just reward them. The LP would wise to help private efforts to help prostitutes go straight, help drug addicts recover, and gamblers manage their finances.
Just my opinion.
I agree with everything you said, David. I think the best overall strategy for dealing with these kinds of issues is to first advocate that the federal and even state governments stay out of it and allow local communities to deal with these questions on their own.
These are bigger issues in large cities and metropolitan areas that have large populations of drug addicts, prostitutes, gangs, homeless, etc. In conservative rural communities or smaller towns where hostility to these groups is overwhelming, prohibiton might be maintained on the “dry county” model (not that I personally favor this). In the larger cities where these kinds of things are rampant there might be a model of decriminalization similar to that of some of the European cities. I’ve been to Amsterdam twice and there hashish and marijuana are sold in bars and coffee shops just like beer and tobacco, churches and soup kitchens give out daily rations of heroin to addicts to keep them from running around snatching purses, casinos are just like arcades here in the states, prostitutes are no different from the strip clubs you find in US cities, the sale of hard drugs is ignored except where violence and severe public nuisances are involved. Even Third World peasants who are caught smuggling drugs through the airports are released and deported unless they’re involved with organized violent crime. Even the worst sections of Amsterdam are mild compared to US cities. There crime mostly consists of pickpockets, luggage thieves, scam artists and the like. Violent sex crimes and violent street crimes nowhere near approach what we have in the states.
I think libertarians should not only make more effort to support non-state means of dealing with these issues but also non-state social services in general. We’re always saying that the private sector should take of these matters, so we should make more effort to actually do it ourselves.
I agree that all victimless crimes should be legalized, but the criminalization of them is not at all akin to previous ethnic/racial persecution. In a purely eonomic sense, a behavior is being penalized by the state, which raises its cost and reduces its incidence.
Also, don’t confuse the classical liberals of the revolutionary days with modern libertarianism. They had plenty of “blue laws” when the articles of confederation and constitution were signed. Even Jefferson, of “separation of church and state” fame, said it was the domain of state governments to regulate religious and other matters, which was the commonly accepted view of the time.
I agree with what you say about the classical liberals. But remember that some of them defended slavery as well, or at least looked the other way. Jefferson himself favored castrating homosexuals. So, no, they weren’t modern libertarians by any means, but they probably did the best they could within the context of their times.
Some people argue that the comparison of victimless crimes with ethnic persecution is inaccurate, usually on the grounds that victimless crimes are matters of behavior, as opposed to an immutable condition like race, gender or disability. But both have the same social function: the scapegoating of the powerless or disfavored for the sake of empowering the state.
Actually, I think the best thing to compare victimless crimes to might not be racial persecution but persecution of a religious or political nature. After all, religious and political affilitation are not natural conditions. Individuals can change these. During the pre-Enlightenment era, a heretic could sometimes avoid the stake by renouncing his heterodox religious beliefs. And the purpose of the re-education camps in the communist countries was to coerce/brainwash dissidents towards political correctness.
It’s also interesting to see how the rhetoric of inquisitors from the past mirrors that of today’s prohibitionists.
http://www.attackthesystem.com/drugwar.html
Mises himself argued against drug prohibition on the grounds that bad ideologies are far more harmful than bad drugs.
Keith’s mises quote is bang on target here. However well-meaning, it is nobody’s place to compel another to behave in a particular way on the grounds of protecting that person from harming himself. As John Stuart Mill said, ( words to the effect of…) he can attempt to convince or cajole in giving advice, but he has no right to make the decision on the other’s behalf.
It is easy to declare that , say, heroin addiction is harmful. but for any ‘social problem’ that is (almost) universally agreed to be a problem, one can point to many others where the issue is not so cut and dried. Why is marijuana illegal but tobacco not? there is in principle no difference between them: they both present definite health risks , albeit opinion differes about the relative extent and nature of such risk. And their benefits are chimeral at best, properly understood only by the individual user of either. WHether or not to make use of either, is a question no different from taking any other action, like eating food or taking medication (Think about chemotherapy: it presents a chance of curing the cancer, at the risk of doing some other very bad stuff to you). So the question to be answered by the person contemplating its use is a weigh-up of the subjectively-percieved benefit ( which must by definition exist if so many people do it) against the risks and costs, which include health aspects, opportunity cost, and of course legal risks for some activities in the current legal milieu.
the fact that the law permits the use of alcohol or tobacco but outlaws the use of marijuana ( or any of the others for that matter) where the health risks and the subjective benefits are no less real, underscores the fact that when it comes to ‘crimes of morality’, what is regarded as criminal and what is not, is arbitary, a cumulative result of historical accident, rather than a coherent application of a consistent legal principle. The differential treatment of alcohol/tobacco/marijuana by the law is always and everywhere absurd.
This is but one expample of a multitude of other legal absurdities that impinge on individual freedom. Which is why I like to make a distinction between ‘natural’ crime ( viz. actions that impinge on the property or person of another without his or her consent), and ‘synthetic’ crime, private actions that are designated criminal by government fiat. For example, the Australian prohibition on leaving a 12-year old alone at home without a babysitter when the parents go out for dinner(!), or ( In SOuth Africa) guiding tourists for reward without a government license (!). Or using a cellphone while driving a car. Etc.
Unfortunately I am neither a lawyer, judge nor legislator, so my classification doesn’t amount to a row of beans, beyond allowing me to still sleep with a clear conscience when I break synthetic laws, and making me feel properly guilty when I have inadvertantly done something that has indeed hurt somebody.
You would think that with terrorism and serious crimes (violent incidents, illicit drugs, corporate crime involving millions) that LE could find a more productive way to spend their time. Escorts are not a threat to society.
Escort services are totally peaceful, however much immorality may be involved on both sides based on demeaning of oneself, etc. And the idea of harming society with such services is nonsense–there is no society apart from individuals, so the issues is are any individual rights violated by means of them. None.
Escort services are totally peaceful, however much immorality may be involved on both sides based on demeaning of oneself, etc. And the idea of harming society with such services is nonsense–there is no society apart from individuals, so the issues is are any individual rights violated by means of them. None.
Jill said: Escorts are not a threat to society.
quite. UNfortunately, as we have seen in SOuth Africa, when marginalised by being outlawed, the entire industry tends towards a close association with ‘real’ criminality – gangsters, extortion, exploitation….. And this association then becomes more grist to the moralists’ propaganda mill.
Well here is the arguement that has been in our “SO CALLED” free socitey for years. It is a shame that we the people in this country let the goverment have such a strong hold on our lives. This country is in such good shape, escort services is the only thing that is wrong with todays socitey. No let the adults who need company go to the streets, let the drug addicts
finance there problems, The difference between
the common man and our masters of the universe(goverment) is that they are above the law so it dont apply to them. My feeling is that if two concenting adults feel the need for companionship then this is the proper way to obtain it. In other words tell the masters to consentrate on hunger, dead beat fathers, drug lords, you know, things that really hurt us as a people. Good luck in your quest to beat this system. D Vitale
Tibor,
The issue a society must address is whether such activities impose externalities on others and if so, whether the cure is worse than the disease. It is a perfectly valid question with much room for debate on a wide range of human affairs.
In any pool of individuals who contractually agree to spread risk, such questions will have to be debated, resolved, and the solution imposed. I predict it will be via some sort of legislative process with majority rule.
“Externality” is (unnecessary) jargon for “violation of rights.” Mostly when the jargon is deployed by economists, they have in mind violation of private property rights but it could also mean rights that define one’s personal domain (such as one’s lungs, body, etc.).
Escort services clearly do not facilitate the violation of such rights–there’s no problem of externality with them. There is only the disapproval–maybe morally justified in most cases but irrelevant for public policy purposes in a free society–by some in a community where they are operated. Those who uphold the principles of a free society may not shy away, even for strategic purposes, from affirming these principles in cases of disagreeable folks. I agree that that may not be the first item on their agenda but when it does arise, shying from it is cowardly.
Tibor,
“Those who uphold the principles of a free society may not shy away, even for strategic purposes, from affirming these principles in cases of disagreeable folks.”
This is a nice, generalized statement. I agree, as to this specific issue, that the government should not tell you that you can’t sleep with prostitutes. But others will have to deal with your failed marriage or your venereal disease, and they have every right to demand that you refrain from exercising your right to have sex with prostitutes. I’d go further and say that your wife’s family would be perfectly justified in administering a little extra-judicial enforcement of their demand. It is a small step from your wife’s family making a calculation of the externalities, to the policyholders of a mutual insurer doing the same thing, and finally, to a polity making such a calculation.
This is why so-called anarchists should promote conservative institutions instead of seeking to level traditional society. Big government is a harder sell when people govern themselves, and it’s easier for people to govern themselves when church, family and community are strengthened.
Reactionary;
NOW you are catching on – the thing the state objects to (directly anyway) is not that married men are having sex with women not their wives, but that money changes hands.
In other words, screwing around on your wife is a matter of total indifference on the part of the state, while giving the woman providing the service a lump-sum cash payment most certainly is not.
This is as good an argument as any I have seen for privatizing marriage and ‘family court’ issues for those who opt not to be married.
Vince,
Generally speaking, the legislators who pass “vice” laws and the police officers who enforce them do so out of a sense that the proscribed activities are immoral and harmful per se. The ACLU makes a lot of hay out of the fact that government officials frequently act out of religious motivations.
To make a site famous you need to have lots of banners and reviews. The problem is that presently it’s hard to find a correct site to set review to. Particularly banners connected with escort agency. London escort reviews is the best place for your escort reviews if you want to promote escort agencies.
The people are loosing their moral while becoming modern. The society needs to be attentive that moral value.
————————————
local escorts
Anyone heard about hometownescorts.com?. Should I post my profile there?
Comments on this entry are closed.