Prostitution should be legal. I'm arguing this here on an ethical basis. The reasons for my contention are simple; 1. Ethically speaking, as long as all involved consent, in the words of George Carlin; 'why is it illegal to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away'? 2. It can actually pay well, and you aren't a sex slave because... 3. Legalizing prostitution means street workers become employed by groups that can be socially regulated, ensuring better working conditions. 4. If you have some moral limit to what you would do for money, that's no reason to infringe upon the choice of others. 5. Similar to 4., personal moral views over how you choose to live your personal life is also no basis for restricting the lifestyle and hence the employment of others when it does no harm to you or those involved. I see no reason it should be outlawed.
To be honest, I'm of two minds on this one. But I'll play devil's advocate and toss up an argument I thought was compelling when other's put it forward. The argument is that certain rights cannot be abridged, even if that abridgment is consensual. We don't allow folks to consent to suicide, we don't allow them to consensually sell themselves into slavery, we don't allow people to consent to sale of their organs. The prohibition exists because we believe the law must protect people from loss of these rights, even if the person trying to strip them of life, liberty, or ownership of their body is themselves.
I concur; legalise, regulate, and tax. I would imagine legally mandated STI checkups every so often would go some way to making prostitution safer for all involved.
What right are you protecting by banning prostitution? 'ownership of your body' is not allowed? But that would mean all labor forces are 'violating' this right you speak of.
Stripping someone of ownership of their body is not allowed, even if the person stripping you of that right is yourself. That was a reference to selling organs... when you sell a kidney you no longer own it. You've given up ownership of your body (or a chunk of it) for money. What rights are being abdicated by prostituting yourself...? Good question, fundamental question. I do believe there is a fundamental difference between accepting money in exchange for labor and accepting money to allow someone to sexually enter your body... not sure how to define it though. I don't have a clear answer for you. A better analogy might not be with "all labor" but with medical testing. We legally allow folks to take money in exchange for allowing others to test medication and treatments on them. Seems that's a form of prostitution.
Under the natural rights ethic one could act as a slave would but consensually and it's only unethical if one is forced to remain in such a state after consent is withdrawn. Selling organs isn't something I've given a lot of thought to. I think it would be better stated as it is unethical to remove them just as it's unethical to kill another person even if he/she requests it. I don't see anything unethical about exchanging one's money or other goods in return for labor, which is the essence of prostitution. As with any other contract, it is ethical so long as both parties can terminate association at any time, even in the middle of the act. Natural rights cannot be aliened, but self-ownership requires that one be able to have sex with whomever and whenever one wishes if it's consensual, and to be able to sell one's labor to whomever and whenever one wishes, even if that labor involves sex.
I cant see a difference. I can understand your position, but as long as all involved consent and there is no coercion or immense harm to society involved, and there isn't here, then I can't see why or how it should be opposed.
"Immense harm to society" is meaningless. If there is an identifiable victim, then there is a crime. if there's no identifiable victim. The claim that "society is harmed" without any identifiable victims of an identifiable action is pure sophistry. Drugs don't harm society. The use of illicit drugs doesn't harm society. Occasionally a user of a prohibitied substance will harm another person who is a member of society. Statistically, drug users are more likely to harm other people than non-drug users. This is given as evidence that drug use must be stopped and criminalized. However, statistically, vehicle drivers are more likely to harm other people than non-vehicle drivers (40,000 are killed, many more maimed by vehicle drivers) yet there is no call for outlawing vehicles. If prohibitionists trully felt there is a moral imperative to save lives by eliminating risk, then they would call for all activity that creates risk for individuals not engaged in that activity to be prohibited. So, it can be rationally concluded that it is not the harm that is done to some individuals that concerns the prohibitionist, but the enjoyment of the substance without any societal benefit that then makes it immoral. Drugs are bad because they are fun.
That's what I mean. Agreed. True, however society is affected by having to often pay for the repercussions of said substance abuse, but this is for another thread. In essence and principle I agree with you.
When comes to organs, one (in the US anyway) cannot legally sell them. Technically when you receive a donor organ you are not billed for said organ, just its removal and placement in your body and removal and disposal of the defunct organ you had prior. Likewise, when you donate plasma the payment you receive for the process is a payment for your time and not the plasma itself. Through some sort of clever legal wording couldnt someone come up with some way to pay said prostitute for their time or some such process other than the sex itself and via that clever wording avoid the criminal portion of the profession?
They can't afford the same lawyers. Otherwise that argument about "paying for placing an organ in the body" world work in both cases.
What about property? Am I not allowed to sell or give away my property because property is a right? Why do you care if a consensual adult sells themselves into slavery or sells an organ? And come on... don't tell me you support that stupid suicide law. Also, how is this an argument to outlaw prostitution? It's legitimate to outlaw things between consenting adults, so... outlaw voluntary sex + voluntary exchange of money? If some idiot wants to go to a brothel that doesn't do checkups, isn't that his choice? You don't have a clear answer because you don't have a clear position. You're unsure because you know there's no reason to outlaw prostitution, but you've always been told it's wrong, so you can't commit yourself to legalize prostitution. You have brought forth no argument to keep prostitution prohibited.
I would care. A system which enforces a contract for slavery is not a free or libertarian system. Selling one's services through the use of one's body, ie. prostitution, is a different. It's just an exchange of labor for title (property.) Selling an organ? Hard to say. I think people should not be prevented from selling them after they are dead in order to provide benefits for their family. It's certainly not ethical for any person to take someone's organs knowing that it would be the cause of their death. That would be homicide.
Why not? If it's voluntary, the intensity or brutality is irrelevant. Would you impose laws on the voluntary exchange of slavery because you feel that it's an exploitation of the voluntary "victim"? Unethical, sure, but if someone is willing to sacrifice his/her life to earn money for his/her family or whatever, why should that be prohibited by the government?
I think his point was that no one should be forced into a contract of slavery. So for example, someone who is poor, or in desperate need of employment etc, should not be allowed to sell themselves into slavery for rather apparent reasons. The premise of selling one's labor in trade for self interest is not disputed - what is disputed is the necessary conditions for said trade. I dont think all voluntary trade should be accessibly if it does harm to others, or in cases where the idea of 'voluntary decision making' is hazy - ie not entirely voluntary and free. I think this is BHK's contention as well.
I could apply that same argument to prostitution. If someone would rather sell himself into slavery for a few years than remain poor for the rest of his life, that's his decision to make. Similarly, if a woman wants to sell her body to earn income, that's her decision. If it deprives someone else's rights who did not agree to such terms, obviously there should be restrictions there. However, the argument that it's not really voluntary because that person has no where else to turn is the most common argument I hear for prostitution. I actually find it to be an argument for prostitution -- if it's not a choice, why arrest the women who are involuntarily selling their bodies?
Not for nothing guys, but I wouldn't want a prostitute. They do it for a living, they're constantly having sex with a countless number of men on a daily basis. Do you really want to put your junk there? I am not one to talk, I have my share of prostitutes back in the old day, but then again AIDS wasn't around then either.
Agreed -- I would never hire a hooker, but if consensual adults want to do that, I don't think my personal morals should be enforced on them.
Strawman. I never said that I feel anything about the matter, nor did I say that I would "impose" any laws. I would argue that with or without the presence of a government, slavery is unlawful. Government or no government, doesn't matter. Let's say that you want to earn extra money to support your family. You offer yourself as a slave to some millionaire. Some time after your family gets the money and you begin work as a slave you decide that you are tired of the work and want to leave. Your "owner" refuses to let you go, even in return for compensation or promise of it, and threatens dire harm should you try to escape. You knock out the "owner" with a 2x4 and leave. Is it self defense, or are you property and have no rights? If you go for help and someone helps you, are they assisting in defense of your life and self-ownership, or are they unlawfully holding stolen property?
So the law would merely emerge in a free market? Depends on what the agreement was. If I signed a contract that says someone else now owns me for the rest of my life, I can't change that. If, however, the contract says that I can terminate the agreement at any time (or variations thereof), then I should be able to do so. I don't see why government should be sticking their nose into what consensual adults agree upon.
No. There are two reasons and have nothing to do with feelings. One is that self-ownership is unalienable. Second are all the rights that extend from self-ownership. Volunteering to be a slave is fine. It's just labor in return for whatever compensation is agreed upon. Once it become involuntary, the "slave" who still owns himself, is right to use whatever self-defense is necessary to terminate the association. Right, it must be entirely voluntary at all times.
