Good news!

Quote: Mission146

I concur with your perspective on this matter, but my suggestion would be that the Federal Government would have a restriction stating no speed limit can exceed x, perhaps x would be 90 mph. The States/Municipalities could then have a more stringent regulation, i.e. a lower speed limit.

Already have a guideline for that. And already tried it with 55 in the 1970s. 55 was a disaster. I just trust local authority more than having to GED fed approval.

Quote:

The Federal Government would also proscribe minimum penalties for speeding, and all driver's licenses would be Federally-Issued, so an individual who was Suspended/Revoked would have zero probability of getting a license in another State, because States would not issue them.

States have already set up the registration thing among themselves. As to minimums it is also something I do not care for. 10 mph over in congested LA is more dangerous than in the middle of nowhere in NM.

Quote: Mission146

The one thing I would say is that I would permit pre-marital sex, but only with respect to prostitution. It would also have to be a Government licensed and sanctioned whorehouse, and the reason is, you could tax the Hell out of it, so there is an Economic benefit to its legality. Furthermore, the whores would be checked for diseases as often as possible, and a client list would be maintained at all times should any of the whores be found to have a disease so the client could be promptly notified.

- Should any activity be made legal if there is economic benefit?
- What would "as often as possible" mean in real world terms? Once a month, once a week, once a day, after each customer?
- The client could be notified? What about prosecuted?

Quote: Mission146

I don't know if I would permit married individuals to use the services of the Government-sanctioned whorehouse. That'd be a really tough decision.

Not tough, open to all. More customers = more economic benefit.

Quote: Mission146

I probably would, but only with a letter from the wife giving specific consent, I'd probably also require she initially come with him the first time to present a valid State I.D. along with signing the notice of consent.

Well, that would sure put a damper on the economic benefit party. The reason many married guys would want to do this is precisely because the gatekeeper at home won't let them have any. This would be like saying a married guy can only stop at the bar after work if his wife signs off on it... why do you think he wants that drink? :)

And why are we stating all of these things in terms of male customers and female service providers? Does this indicate a bias in our thinking?

r u guys saying girls shoudl be hookers???

Quote: YesThereReal

r u guys saying girls shoudl be hookers???

Obviously this person is trolling. Misspells words
sometimes and spells them fine other times.
Makes nonsensical posts. Posts in every thread.
Where are the mod's on this.

Quote: EvenBob

Obviously this person is trolling. Misspells words
sometimes and spells them fine other times.
Makes nonsensical posts. Posts in every thread.
Where are the mod's on this.

What's wrong Bob, jealous? Someone horning in on your territory?

Quote: MonkeyMonkey

- Should any activity be made legal if there is economic benefit?
- What would "as often as possible" mean in real world terms? Once a month, once a week, once a day, after each customer?
- The client could be notified? What about prosecuted?

A.) Perhaps, if there can still be an economic benefit after it is sufficiently regulated.

B.) Probably once a month.

C.) Prosecuted for what? Maybe if he were the only client who had that particular STD.

Quote:

Not tough, open to all. More customers = more economic benefit.

Adultery is illegal in my model, so that was a consideration.

Quote:

Well, that would sure put a damper on the economic benefit party. The reason many married guys would want to do this is precisely because the gatekeeper at home won't let them have any. This would be like saying a married guy can only stop at the bar after work if his wife signs off on it... why do you think he wants that drink? :)

And why are we stating all of these things in terms of male customers and female service providers? Does this indicate a bias in our thinking?

If they cannot have any, then they cannot have any. In such an event, and if having any means that much to them, then they can legally get a divorce (and are free to visit the whorehouses) or legally marry someone else.

I have no bias in my thinking, if a brothel of males catering to females, other males, or females catering to females could be profitable, or if a single brothel wanted to offer all of these options, then that would be fine. Regardless of gender or sexual orientation, adultery would be illegal and a letter of consent from the legal spouse, presenting valid ID, would be required.

You present some interesting points.

Quote: Mission146

C.) Prosecuted for what? Maybe if he were the only client who had that particular STD.

Well, if the workers (trying to use gender-neutral pronouns) were clean, then came up diseased it would had to have come from somewhere. Along that same line what about medical checkups (beyond the current DC done in Nevada brothels) for the customers?

Quote: Mission146

Adultery is illegal in my model, so that was a consideration.

Well, I can understand how your particular feelings can influence your outlook, but adultery isn't illegal, so don't we have to use that as a basis for the framework of the discussion?

Also, since gay marriage isn't widely accepted, in your world view are they committing an act that you believe should be illegal? And is the fact that in many cases it's not their fault does that mitigate any potential guilt in the matter?

Quote: Mission146

If they cannot have any, then they cannot have any. In such an event, and if having any means that much to them, then they can legally get a divorce (and are free to visit the whorehouses) or legally marry someone else.

Is this sort of statement not dissimilar to saying if gays want to get married then they are free to do so... to a partner of the opposite gender?

Quote: Mission146

I have no bias in my thinking, if a brothel of males catering to females, other males, or females catering to females could be profitable, or if a single brothel wanted to offer all of these options, then that would be fine. Regardless of gender or sexual orientation, adultery would be illegal and a letter of consent from the legal spouse, presenting valid ID, would be required.

That was more just good natured ribbing, there have been attempts at brothels in Nevada with male service providers. It didn't work out so well.

Quote: AZDuffman

Already have a guideline for that. And already tried it with 55 in the 1970s. 55 was a disaster. I just trust local authority more than having to GED fed approval.

States have already set up the registration thing among themselves. As to minimums it is also something I do not care for. 10 mph over in congested LA is more dangerous than in the middle of nowhere in NM.

55 is too low for a maximum permissible speed.

I agree with you on everything except license Registration, I think it should still be Federal, that way your Social Security Card would be the only acceptable form of ID to get one, of course, you'd still need two others.

The minimum fine would still only be if an officer decided to pull you over for speeding in the first place, and decided to issue the ticket. As now, the officer would still have some discretion in that regard.

Quote: MonkeyMonkey

You present some interesting points.

Well, if the workers (trying to use gender-neutral pronouns) were clean, then came up diseased it would had to have come from somewhere. Along that same line what about medical checkups (beyond the current DC done in Nevada brothels) for the customers?

They'd be prostitutes regardless of gender, I believe.

I agree that it would have had to come from one of the customers, but if the prostitute also passed the disease onto other customers, then you wouldn't strictly know which customer from whom it came. You could hazard a guess that it would be the least recent customer also having the disease, but then the prostitute may have had extracurricular sex with someone with the disease, so you don't really know.

What would be great is if it were profitable to have a prostitute specifically because the prostitute has a certain disease, and then customers also having the disease could choose to use the services of that prostitute.

This would also go well with the adultery law. If you had an individual who gave their spouse an STD, (which is why signature is required) and there was no spouse signature of file at a brothel (or the prostitute didn't have said disease) then the individual either committed adultery or illegally gained access to the brothel, both punishable by death.

Quote:

Well, I can understand how your particular feelings can influence your outlook, but adultery isn't illegal, so don't we have to use that as a basis for the framework of the discussion?

Also, since gay marriage isn't widely accepted, in your world view are they committing an act that you believe should be illegal? And is the fact that in many cases it's not their fault does that mitigate any potential guilt in the matter?

The entire brothel thing is predicated upon the fact that I would make other forms of adultery and pre-martial sex illegal and punishable by death for adults, for minors, you would go to juvenile hall until attainting the age of 21.

Quote:

Is this sort of statement not dissimilar to saying if gays want to get married then they are free to do so... to a partner of the opposite gender?

Can you please re-phrase the question? I'm not sure what you are asking me. Gays could marry a partner of the opposite gender, but I don't see why they would want to. Gay marriage would be Federally legal in my model, because it should be legal for everyone. Anyone can marry whoever they choose as long as neither partner is already married or is a minor.

Quote:

That was more just good natured ribbing, there have been attempts at brothels in Nevada with male service providers. It didn't work out so well.

I didn't imagine there would be that great of a market for it, but if someone wanted to try a separate male brothel, offer homosexual services, or do both within the context of a brothel already offering heterosexual services for males, then they certainly could.

Quote: Mission146

I agree that it would have had to come from one of the customers, but if the prostitute also passed the disease onto other customers, then you wouldn't strictly know which customer from whom it came. You could hazard a guess that it would be the least recent customer also having the disease, but then the prostitute may have had extracurricular sex with someone with the disease, so you don't really know.

Currently in Nevada (in the counties in which it is legal) a condom must be worn when partaking of the services of a legal prostitute. AFAIK, there has only been 1 case of an STD being given to a customer.

Quote: Mission146

What would be great is if it were profitable to have a prostitute specifically because the prostitute has a certain disease, and then customers also having the disease could choose to use the services of that prostitute.

You've entered into a hall of mirrors that I don't think I can follow you into.

Quote: Mission146

This would also go well with the adultery law. If you had an individual who gave their spouse an STD, (which is why signature is required) and there was no spouse signature of file at a brothel (or the prostitute didn't have said disease) then the individual either committed adultery or illegally gained access to the brothel, both punishable by death.

Pretty harsh penalty, care to expand on that line of thinking?

Quote: Mission146

The entire brothel thing is predicated upon the fact that I would make other forms of adultery and pre-martial sex illegal and punishable by death for adults, for minors, you would go to juvenile hall until attainting the age of 21.

You didn't mention that upfront, I assumed we were working in a semi-realistic framework. This renders several of the other areas of discussion moot.