Surely you're not that stupid? Where do you get off even suggesting Mr. Greenwald would advocate compelling someone into sex work? What you're doing is called bringing up a straw man. That's all you have, because you are not rational, and you're not able to rationally advocate your position because your position simply isn't rational.

Why do YOU have the right to decide what other people can do with their lives? If you think it's OK to decide what other people can do, then understand that the reverse is true, they can decide what YOU can do, like tell you to jump off a cliff (no I'm not advocating either proposition, neither of you have the right to tell each other what to do, and I'm explaining that because you are so tendentious that anyone responding to you almost needs to think of every nonsensical response you can come up with, and you can come up with plenty, apparently).

If you're so concerned with their lives, offer to help them, not put them behind bars. But if they tell you to stick it, that's their right and your obligation.

<<If you think that prostitution should be legal, then do you think that women should be compelled to go into sex work when placed there by state unemployment agencies, as per the case of the Netherlands that I gave earlier? Women are compelled to take other jobs when their unemployment runs out. Why shouldn't they be placed in brothels if sex work is fully normalized? Shouldn't brothel owners submit their openings to the Social Services, and use the government offices to interview recruits? Shouldn't those recruits the brothel owners select be required to show up at work and perform, just as they are for say, cleaning or filing jobs?>>

--Ron Robertson

It really depends upon who they are, but likely there is a serious element of hypocrisy on the part of who(m)ever released Spitzer's name. If the names are all people who are not public figures, there's no real justification for releasing their names. A case could be made that it's Spitzer's hypocrisy that justifies his name being released, since he (I understand, but don't know first-hand) vigorously prosecuted prostitution cases, similar to that of congressmen supporting or introducing homophobic legislation secretly being gay themselves. Without knowing the facts, it's hard to know if there's hypocrisy or not. That said, it's quite likely you are right that some high-powered people were involved, considering the alleged price range involved.

--Ron

<<Glenn hits most of the issues I have recognized about this particular case. What no one seems to be asking is: name Clients 1-8 and 10-n. If it is fair to identify one who committed a crime, then it is fair to name them all. It, no doubt, would create some international incidents. Since the customer base of the Emperor's Club probably includes some of the wealthiest men in the world, some of whom hold high political office, the repercussions would be resounding.

>>

I read the responses to blog posts only intermittently, though I have been following this one more closely, as it brings up fundamental issues on the nature of government. I agree with you about the drug wars. I'm not sure it's the ultimate denial of individual freedom, I thought that was when we had the draft. Since that's no longer the law, perhaps the drug war is now the ultimate denial of individual freedom. One of the most offensive things I remember being proposed some years back was the death penalty for drug dealers, and I'm not sure it was limited to just drug dealers.

--Ron

<<I rub practically everyone on this blog the wrong way by constantly harping on the drug war. But I see the drug war as the ultimate hypocrisy and the ultimate denial of individual freedom.>>

@Aycharich <<Which is why I despise conservatives and no longer consider myself a liberal after a lifetime of self identifying that way.

The liberal failure to face up to what they have wrought in the drug war, even here on this blog, has made me even more cynical than I was.. Something I didn't really think was possible a few years ago.>>

I believe I understand what you mean. My views may differ from yours (I don't know), but for me certain liberals and most conservatives often are just two sides of the same idea, controlling other people's lives. The conservative side wants to control your personal life, and liberals want to control your money. None seem to question the very idea that any aspect of one's life should be controlled by others. I tend to not go for cynicism, since that implies no solutions are possible. Recognition of the value of true rationality in all aspects of one's life would eliminate many of today's problems. So, with that, I have a certain viewpoint about politics, I'd like the democrats to win so decisively that the republican party as it exists today is wiped out. Then, I'd like to see a rational party take their place, and then our country could make true progress. But first, as I see it, the republican party is a full-on danger to the country as they are now, far more dangerous than the democrats at this time.

--Ron

I think the real answer to this is that education for many years now has not had a purpose of helping people to learn to think more clearly and apprehend reality, in fact, I'd say a lot of it is geared at exactly the opposite. With that, it should come as no surprise that intellectuals now have so little connection to reality, and people without the "benefit" of that education are more well-grounded in reality.

You, Paul Dirks, Margalis, Mona and several other people here have been quite enjoyable to read. Mr. Greenwald's blog is quite good, maybe the best one out there, as I'm certainly unaware of any better one.

--Ron Robertson

<<I used to be surprised that a lot of the manual labor types I tend to be around a good bit of the time seem more in touch with reality than those with more high powered jobs, but I have come to realize that when one does manual labor it is impossible to ignore reality. Many more high powered jobs are at a sufficient level of abstraction that job performance is hard to accurately evaluate.. They get away with bafflegab and bullshit a lot of the time.

>>

Sorry I've been spelling your name wrong all night long (I can't figure out how to "say" your name in my head)!

Anyway, I'll check out those blogs you mentioned. I've not had anything to do with the military (they ended the draft shortly before I turned 18, and reinitiated registration after I was to old for that). But, it might be quite interesting to read what's being said there. And Balloon Juice sounds interesting, thanks for the tip!

--Ron

If I'm reading you right, you're saying we should make a "balance" between freedom and non-freedom? Society is not god (not that I believe in that either), it's a bunch of individuals. Laws should be about how to make it for those individuals to live freely, not restrict what they can do because people sometimes do things that are not good for them. I do not accept that other have claims on my life, or that I have claims on theirs, other than what we may choose to do of our own free accord. Any "balance" between freedom and non-freedom is only going to lead to non-freedom (and what I mean by freedom is not freedom from responsibility for my own life).

--Ron

<<Sometimes, saying "you have no right to tell me what to do" (especially when that wasn't what I was doing) sounds infantile, as if the posters are telling off their mothers or something--just an impression. But we are adults, we live IN SOCIETY--we need to be informed about things and try and come to a consensus about how we balance freedom with social responsibility. Ignoring what life is really like for others makes it impossible to come to informed consensus.

>>