12/20/2010 Freedom Watch w/ Judge Napolitano on victimless crimes and who owns your body?

Here is Monday’s edition of Freedom Watch. The Judge and his guests explore the notion that we own our own bodies and the government does not.




  1. Roland Said,

    December 21, 2010 @ 8:46 am

    Ha ha! Ms. Roth thinks she won the debate with her zinger at the end: “Let’s cut the subsidies to corn and cheese and sugar…” Well, yes, cut them – to zero. Does she really think libertarians support these?
    Morality-police apologist Wright argues that there can be a “profound impact” on the wives of men who do business with prostitutes. No doubt about that. But it could also have a profound impact on my family if I buy a 60-inch TV for every room in the house and then can’t make the mortgage payment. So, Wendy, should the government limit my TV purchases to protect my family?
    Also, I fail to see how prostitutes’ bodies are treated any more as “objects” than are the bodies of models or athletes or surgeons, since all are selling the use of their bodies to please customers. And heck, the surgeon could get an STD if he cuts his finger while practicing his trade on an infected patient. Shut down those operating rooms!

  2. Tom Said,

    December 21, 2010 @ 4:24 pm

    Judge, and I have great respect for the title and Your Opinions. I'm in general agreement with 95% of Your opinions.

    But, You failed in a very central core truth area. Your comparison of when a man takes a woman out to dinner and buys her steak, then lies in her arms the same night……is the same as (ie. equal to) ….when a man gives a woman money for sex….unveils a serious lack of the value for the heart and soul of a woman, every woman. A man has the obligation to always consider a woman's safety and true well being….irregardles of a prurient interest. Your comparison, thrown like a blanket over all women, reveals a lack of knowledge of the true humanity and self view of a woman. No one is even close to perfect as I'm sure You are aware…..but a man, has deep, serious and profound obligations toward all women. That knowledge and those obligations are central to our humanity and our definition of love. Part 1

  3. tom Said,

    December 21, 2010 @ 4:25 pm

    I'm an older man and I thank God for my early years with a loving Grandmother and an extremely mature and caring Father and Mother. They gave me this knowledge and it has been confirmed throughout a lifetime. I wish You only the best and hope You have a wonderful Christmas Holliday. Your Friend, Tom

    After rereading the above, I realize the subject has only been barely breached. Will write an essay on it. Part 2

  4. akerman69 Said,

    December 21, 2010 @ 11:21 pm

    Tom, go back to the Victorian era where your ideas fit in. I have as a man no more obligation to consider a woman's safety and well being than she does mine. That's the era I was born in. The operative here is consensual, and women are just as game at seduction as men. Shees! I once had neighbors where the wife looked like Godiva but was strong as an ox. When I asked her for some help moving an engine she nearly took it away from me and could have dropped it on my feet. She never dishonored my inferior strength and I didn't dishonor her femininity.

  5. Winnie Said,

    December 22, 2010 @ 1:04 pm

    The issue of prostitution can not be addressed in such black and white terms. I have to agree with the Judge that the federal government should stay out of it, but the subject needs to be approached with more understanding. First, a free republic can only be retained by a moral society. Second, generally, men have always seen and used women as a commodity, something to be used, ( women thinking they are liberated are now treating men the same way). The human race needs to wake up. Prostituting isn't using one's body for work, it is being a trash receptacle. Tracy's idea of women becoming independent and not having to depend on welfare is pathetic. Maybe women could raise their morals and do something useful for mankind like starting a little business making soaps or jewelry, anything but since there is no morality left in this country thanks to the Rockefellar foundations, Hollywood, Fifth Avenue etc., and along with greed, prostitutes continue to make big bucks while further degrading both men and women.

  6. Bill Patten Said,

    December 23, 2010 @ 7:21 am

    Judge, your show is interesting. I wonder given your stand on the "war on drugs" if
    you have ever had a narcotics case before you. If so, given your constitutional stand
    on drugs, have you dismissed any cases strictly on the constituion? I don't mean a technical ruling rather summary. If not, then why not ?

    Thank you

  7. Bob Said,

    January 4, 2011 @ 8:44 pm

    Marijuana is the smoke screen to hide the hemp fields. Hemp laws are treason against the Republic. Biomass hemp can replace crude oil funding American farmers not terrorists at the pumps. The war on drugs funds terrorism. We are forced to be the greatest funders of terrorism by controlling our appetites. Hemp for fuel alone will create millions of jobs and give us time to route out the corruption. If you know the truth about hemp I would not understand how you cannot see the treason.

  8. Andrew Hunter Said,

    January 5, 2011 @ 11:55 pm

    Judge Napalitono, should terrorists to the United States who are not citizens of the U.S. have our constitutional rights bestowed on them if captured? It sounds like that is what you believe.
    Do we allow terrorists to kill, destroy and mock our citizens if we can stop their horrific acts of violence by violating the spirit of the U.S. constitution? It seems that you are opposed to this.
    What the heck do you constitutionally stand for?

  9. drewmeister Said,

    January 6, 2011 @ 12:03 am


  10. peg Said,

    January 11, 2011 @ 11:45 pm

    We want the Judge to use a gavel! Please……