Bob Ewegen, the reliably leftist and simple-minded columnist and editor of the Denver Post has written one of his sillier pieces, regarding prostitution laws. The link to his article, entitled "Law that trapped Spitzer was written in a racist fury" is:
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_8577587

And here is my response to Mr. Ewegen:

To the Editor:

Bob Ewegen misses the point about what brought down Eliot Spitzer. It’s not that he, a married man, had sex with a prostitute. It’s that he was the worst sort of hypocrite, venomously prosecuting prostitutes and moralizing at New York and the nation in pursuit of political power, then using those same services. It may also be that he was an idiot; if there’s anyone who knew how easy it is to get caught, it was Eliot Spitzer.

Mr. Ewegen misses a second point: The problem with laws against prostitution has nothing whatsoever to do with the mindset, racist or otherwise, of people who implemented them nearly a century ago. Instead the problem with laws against prostitution is that the act is a voluntary transaction between two people, each of whom are getting what they want. It is victimless in the sense that neither of the direct participants is hurt. (If you want to look at “collateral damage” such as Spitzer’s distraught wife, then there are lots of legal activities which you would also have to then criminalize to be consistent.)

Sorry, Mr. Ewegen, but the only racism to be found in the story is your claim that today’s prohibition against prostitution is somehow to be placed at the feet of whites (oppressing blacks) instead of where it belongs, at the feet of moralizers like Eliot Spitzer.

2 comments

# Bob Piccard Email on 03/17/08 at 15:17
Dadgum, Ross. I went to your blog this afternoon figuring I'd find a reasoned explanation of the value of market forces and the benefits of laissez-faire capitalism and that kind of thing and I was also hoping that someone with experience in the field (you) would explain how a bank's (is Bear-Sterns a bank?) shares could close at thirty on Friday and on Monday morning the whole firm has been bought for two bucks a share. I mean, are back-room week-end deals a normal function of the market? I guess they are, which is why would-be Trotskyites like me don't trust the market.

You're familiar with Trotsky, hey? He believed the national economy had to be managed by a central authority. He also believed in imprisoning his perceived enemies without the bother of trials.

Anyway, so I'm expecting some sort of analysis from a libertarian point of view and what do I find? More Spitzer. I incidentally agree with you about Spitzer but like I say, I was expecting something more significant today.
# Rossputin [Member] Email on 03/17/08 at 15:25
Funny that you just sent me this comment, Bob, because I just finished writing my posting for tomorrow...about Bear, Stearns!!!

I had written the Spitzer piece during the weekend, and then had to write a piece for Human Events in a hurry yesterday, so I didn't get to the Bear thing until today.

Actually, I spent most of the day trading BSC options...didn't go too well, but I expect it will work out fine.

Anyway, stay tuned for tomorrow's post. In fact, I think I'll go add to it now, to address your comment.

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)

Politics, economics, current events, philosophy and more, with an emphasis on free minds, free markets, and free people.

August 2008
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
 << <   > >>
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Search

Blogroll

XML Feeds

Contents

free blog tool