Originally posted by Soleran
Great, so is it regulated in Brazil?
No, and they do have very high STD rates. However, effective regulation, not criminalization, is the proper way to combat this. But Shrub wants to promote the Cristian Right's values on a Latin American country where prostitution is correctly seen as part of human nature just like he wants to impose "democracy" on a middle eastern people he knows very little about at the point of a gun.
Originally posted by Soleran
Sexually transmitted disease, prostitution................
The benefits of legalising that sector of the adult industry have been shown to be greater then those possible in trying to keep it illegal - regulation allows taxation, the removal of legal costs and manpower wasted on trying to remove something that is virtually irremovable, actually keeping STDs and the like down, protection of industry workers, etc.
It is unfortunate it isn't better controlled in Brazil but to my knowledge there have been recent moves to reign it in and better regulate it - which is far better then over night criminalising it. Especially considering the quality of Brazilian welfare in ratio to the number of people who would be stripped of their source of income.
Despite claims and the like the call to ban it in this case stemmed more from the moral politics of the US.
By that logic, the US is obligated to give money to everyone for AIDS, cancer, and whatever else is going on. The US tax dollar is not for everyone in the world. I feel absolutely no obligation to freely give out billions of dollars to governments around the world. That might be 'mean' but simply, it's not the US's job to take care of the world.
I am not saying the US should do anything. I am not saying they should be the worlds police, or anything of that nature. But I wonder at such free acceptance of the US using its economic clout to force nations to tow its political/moral line. You feel absolutely fine dangling charity in the face of the needy for no other reason to get people to do what you want?
Re: Federal Government vs. State Government
Originally posted by debbiejo
I'm starting to have a real problem with our Federal government. Anyone else feel this way....They seem to override many state legislations. Even seems to use bribes as one I have just heard of. The State of Michigan had a law in place, but the Federal government wanted to change it. Michigan said NO, so, the Federal government said, then we will not give you the billions that we were giving you for roads. I have heard many such stories of States legislation being over ridden by the Feds. Shouldn't states have their autonomy?Any other stories that anyone wants to share?
They should have some autonomy unless the Federal Govt funds them.
Same with Brazil if they wanted 10 billion dollars I don't see a problem if the lender is putting some stipulations to the agreement.
Re: Re: Federal Government vs. State Government
Originally posted by Soleran
They should have some autonomy unless the Federal Govt funds them.Same with Brazil if they wanted 10 billion dollars I don't see a problem if the lender is putting some stipulations to the agreement.
It would be more acceptable if the stipulations where intended to be of tangible benefit.
I did some casual work in a bank once, loans department. Now once they were called to give a loan to a farm, a farm that was was operating in an outdated, ineffectual fashion. The stipulation was that they had to work with the bank to modernise business practices so the money was used effectively and the chance for repayment was optimised.
However it would have been inappropriate for the bank to go there and stipulate something that was other then improving its business practices (like I don't know, making them wear a certain type of clothing.) Same with the Brazilian situation. Criminalising prostitution is not something they could practically do, and it would not be in their best interests legally, politically or in terms of regulation. The stipulations the US placed on them in receiving the AIDs funding were impractical and not in the arena of beneficial operating criteria.
Originally posted by Soleran
Maybe the person that was writing the check felt differently.Because I can see a correlation between unregulated prostitution and std's and then funding ten billion dollars to help with research of the king of STD's while a bunch of hookers who might be spreading the disease runs unchecked.
Yet it doesn't seem that was one of the main reasons behind it. And even if it was then it would show a remarkable amount of ignorance in a person holding a position that should know better. As has been said previously better regulation, which apparently is in motion (early) in Brazil, is greatly more beneficial and possible then outright criminalisation of it.
If the US wanted to fund Alcoholics Anonymous in Britain, tell me, would it be practical to ask them to legislate Prohibition in the UK before they got the money?
Originally posted by Soleran
Perhaps if you used an example where the USA funded a new liver transplant treatment then sure. I think you get what I am saying here.Cuz let me think here ten billion dollars seems like alot of money to me, like enough money to make some compromises to how I run my country.
So tell me - how did the US handle the Prohibition? If I'm not mistaken it was a monumental failure that only managed to waste a lot of money and resources and tie up police.
Now if the criteria had been "You get AIDs funding if you educate your citizens and regulate prostitution" it would be understandable. It is practical, it is supported by research that that would help, there are benefits. However it was absurd to take the "outlaw it completely" stance, especially when there were moral agendas behind it. It would not be practical for Brazil to obey, nor would it be beneficial to them economically, politically or legally.
Such an absolutist position that was taken in that case shows the regrettable ignorance that occasionally crops up when it comes to the US and how much influence it thinks it has on other nations due to economic clout.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
So tell me - how did the US handle the Prohibition? If I'm not mistaken it was a monumental failure that only managed to waste a lot of money and resources and tie up police.Now if the criteria had been "You get AIDs funding if you educate your citizens and regulate prostitution" it would be understandable. It is practical, it is supported by research that that would help, there are benefits. However it was absurd to take the "outlaw it completely" stance, especially when there were moral agendas behind it. It would not be practical for Brazil to obey, nor would it be beneficial to them economically, politically or legally.
Such an absolutist position that was taken in that case shows the regrettable ignorance that occasionally crops up when it comes to the US and how much influence it thinks it has on other nations due to economic clout.
I feel fairly certain that when I say more people drink then engage in prostitution there is probably some truth in that. Regardless ten billion dollars is alot of cash. I also am not looking at any numbers for Brazil on their prostitution and how that comes into play. Right or wrong whoever wants to offer the money can control the contract if Brazil wanted the ten billion there was a way for them to get it. They opted against it, no blood no foul.
Originally posted by Soleran
I feel fairly certain that when I say more people drink then engage in prostitution there is probably some truth in that. Regardless ten billion dollars is alot of cash. I also am not looking at any numbers for Brazil on their prostitution and how that comes into play. Right or wrong whoever wants to offer the money can control the contract if Brazil wanted the ten billion there was a way for them to get it. They opted against it, no blood no foul.
Of course there aren't more people engaging in prostitution then there are drinking. Tell me - with prostitution illegal in most parts of the US is it nonexistent? No, it remains, and thus resources are required to prosecute it. It as such is a criminal Enterprise, and disease and the like is all through it. Nations with it legalised and with a good amount of regulation have shown vast improvements in cutting disease rates and removing criminal elements.
Now Brazil is terrible with it. It is legal, but poorly regulated. Due to poverty and that lack of regulation it is a huge industry. It is quite bad, and it is worth working against for the number of children caught up in it alone. But there has been no evidence that shows it would be possible for Brazil to effectively criminalise it. It is to big, there is to much money involved in it, and to many people rely on it for there livelihoods (where exactly do they turn if it is criminalised?) As such only moving to regulate it better would be an effective demand. You seem absolutely fine with the US making impractical demands while using money as a leverage.
And that seems to be one of the topics at hand - the Federal Government believing it can coerce others into line by withholding or passing out money, regardless of rights of autonomy or practicality or the like. It is easy to make impractical requests when the outcome wont effect you either way, not so easy for the people who risk loosing vital funding if they don't toe a line that might not be in their best interests. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
You seem absolutely fine with the US making impractical demands while using money as a leverage.
I didn't look at that agreement between Brazil and the USA for the ten billion dollars so I couldn't even imagine what was discussed and what would have to have been in place for the money to be received.
That said the USA has no obligation to even offer Brazil ten billion dollars.
And that seems to be one of the topics at hand - the Federal Government believing it can coerce others into line by withholding or passing out money, regardless of rights of autonomy or practicality or the like. It is easy to make impractical requests when the outcome wont effect you either way, not so easy for the people who risk loosing vital funding if they don't toe a line that might not be in their best interests. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
It certainly does make it easy to keep people in "check" when there is money though huh.
Originally posted by Soleran
It certainly does make it easy to keep people in "check" when there is money though huh.
Which is right? Which is fine when "keeping them in check" simply means "doing what you want them to" - which seems not to really be in the spirit of democracy. I might just be funny like that. Be it a state legalising gay marriage, or wanting to approach a legal situation differently from Federal party lines.
There needs to be some more separation. Otherwise the State/Federal division becomes a rather pale thing, if the state if forced to do whatever the Federals want or risk having their budgets cut.
As far as Federal/State 'bribery' via the federal government, that's open to discussion. But regarding Brazil or any other country we offer money to, we are not obligated to give any thing to anyone. I don't feel guilty if we don't give them money. At all. And if we do give them our money, I think we should get something in return, even though we give out billions a year without getting anything back.