Immorality = Wealth?

In the UK we are constantly changing our position on vice, for example a certain smokable weed keeps falling in and out of favour with the police. This has made me question vice in general.

If alcohol, cheap junk food and prostitution is so harmful for society, then why does society thrive on it? Pattaya is an example of vice being the cause of prosperity for all those who want a piece of it. On the other end of the scale. Without alcohol and cheap junk food, would there be any pleasure in life for the poor? Societies with low levels of pleasure makes for an uncooperative population, bad for business.

I try to imagine a world without illicit substances, discos open till until antisocial hours, money hungry boys and girls leaning forward for your pleasure, carcinogenic yet delicious food, brutally realistic horror media and best of all forums like this where dirty old men banter about the best boy on the dance floor. It's a boring world without vice.

The very things that cause us the most pleasure, are the things that those in charge want to restrict or outlaw. It seems absurd to me. Why doesn't the world capitalise on those things which people indeed want the most?

Self contained immoral behaviour (where participants are willing) is a wealth creator. So why are we in the west so stuck up about it? Bring on the hamburgers and rent boy revolution.

cash in on it..raking in huge taxes on alcohol and cigarettes and will so on the other "vices" you have mentioned when the timing is right despite what anyone says.

[Dboy]

It's all about power and control. It doesn't really matter what the laws are, as they have no moral meaning. It's only important that people obey. This reinforces the powerful and keeps the populace under control. It's governments role to create meaningless laws, and the people's responsibility to break those laws, especially unjust laws. In fact, in my opinion I have a duty to break the law if it's unjust.


Dboy

...and society has the duty to put your ass in jail.

I've never felt a duty to break unjust laws, but I certainly would not think twice about having gay sex 50 years ago when it was illegal in the UK. Perhaps that makes me immoral, and a liability to society in some people's eyes..

If you are to take authorities in a more general sense then you can consider that homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder in the USA until the 70's and according to the W.H.O. until the 90's. I certainly would not have considered myself insane, despite a much larger, more credible authority dictating so.

Boygeenyus I suspect you may have far too little faith in the ability of the common man to determine how to live his life productively.

You're right...I have ZERO faith in humanity to survive without laws hanging over their heads.

[Smiles]

This topic is too hifalutin and serious for Sawatdee. You should take it over to GayButton's board . . . where you'll be told without so much as a howdy-doo ~ by the anti-porno gentlemen there ~ that " ... you just don't get it , do you ... "

Cheers ...

Hey smiles, let's not make this personal! Everyone has their view and all that. In response to you boygeenyus, I am not sure if you mean that seriously or not, but I know plenty of people who genuinely feel as you state.

I can only speak for myself, I like to live as I please, and do my best to show others that which I request of them. My golden rule is I don't impose on other peoples lifestyle, and as such want to receive the same courtesy. I can only justify defining an action as a crime, when the golden rule is broken.

[mikelele-old]

I think restrictions on anything have their roots in the abuse of whatever it is that is being restricted. The catch phrase (trite as it may sound) is really 'everything in moderation' - this makes sense when applied to everything from food to sex. IMO

=)

I guess I am just not in the know. I fail to understand how a sustainable 'excessive purchasing' of a good or service can bring down a society. If anything, it is a sign of a healthy capitalist economy.

Moderation of what can be bought, only serves to moderate growth. If I want to work myself silly to save money to buy a pickled donkey in a large jar to snuggle up to in bed, why not?

In fact, in my opinion I have a duty to break the law if it's unjust.

It may be unjust for you,but laws are made for everyone.There are a lot of people who think the same way as you and they have no knowledge why certain laws are made and what impact they have on the community.
Laws such as street "alcohol free zones" are made because groups gathered in certain areas such as parks,playgrounds etc to drink alcohol,as soon as they were either given on the spot fines or moved on they would say that it is a unjust law.Not everyone agrees with you drinking alcohol if it impacts on someone elses life.
Smoking is now banned in Australia in every building,sorry to take your fun away by this unjust law.. I fail to understand how a sustainable 'excessive purchasing' of a good or service can bring down a society. If anything, it is a sign of a healthy capitalist economy but im happy for it. I suppose one of the things your talking about is alcohol . Alcohol has a very big impact and brings down our society here in Australia.Every FRiday and Sat night crime skyrockets in most cities.Our country towns such as West Dubbo have high domestic violence caused by alcohol.Many Aboriginal people are alcoholics.I would say on a fri and sat night 98 % of street assaults/brawls are alcohol related.
Why,because people become aggressive ,they are hyped up etc looking to fight.Vandalism ,smashing cars,windows also are related to alcohol.
Laws in Sydney prevent groups of 5 people congregating together,certain areas are alcohol free zones that is ,no alcohol to be consumed in that area. Sometimes its not a healthy capitalist society because in the end it costs more for insurance companies to fix the vandalism etc.We have noise laws to stop your neighbour playing his ACDC records at 3am in the morning.Why do we have laws,because people have no respect for each other thats why.

Alcohol has a very big impact and brings down our society here in Australia.Every FRiday and Sat night crime skyrockets in most cities

Well that comes down to whether one determines that alcohol is the root cause of drink fuelled criminal acts or not. I would argue that in such cases alcohol presents society with the uninhibited, deeply held views of that person, all the bottled up opinions that they otherwise feel unable to express nor deal with in everyday life. Smashing cars up, are indeed related to alcohol as you say, but I don't believe alcohol causes aggression. Very few chemical substances actually cause aggression in gentle people. I have heard some people argue, that a society only becomes accountable for it's own failings, when it sees how it's citizens behave when intoxicated. It is the only time the truth can come out.

If a man looks for fights when drunk, then that is what he is under the surface. The same goes for football hooliganism, it's not the sport that causes the violence, it's the character of the people. Alcohol simply dulls the higher parts of the brain moreso because they are more active (something to do with the way certain neurons are insulated with fats I think). The rational, evolved, thinking parts where highly evolved states of mind occur, such as shame and modesty get dulled down more than the rest of the brain for this reason. At least that is my understanding of it.

Give an inwardly contented and happy man as much alcohol as he can drink, then give him a baseball bat, and he will do no harm. It is not in his character. The same cannot be said for the rougher type of man. Therefore it is not the alcohol, it is the man, and wider society to blame for what you describe.

But of course, laws are needed for the reasons you cite - to prevent one man from imposing upon another in an unwelcomed fashion. It is however the laws that infringe on an individual's free right to impose on nobody but himself that I question.