Recent large stories in Britain and the US keep the issue of whether prostitution should be legalised in the public eye. I think it should. The resignation this week of Eliot Spitzer, a US politician and former state prosecutor who quit after allegations about his use of prostitutes’ services – despite his prosecuting them in his day job – and the recent conviction of the British murderer of five Ipswich prostitutes, convince me we should legalise it. The benefits are many:
People like Eliot Spitzer and other vicious, corrupt state officials would have fewer ways of annoying the rest of us, which is unquestionably a public good. Pimps who control prostitutes, or who attempt to do so, would have fewer opportunities to prey on such women. The spread of sexually transmitted disease would be reduced, if not eliminated because a client could shop around to find brothels that enforce hygiene checks and advertised themselves accordingly. If he caught a STD, the client could sue the brothel, just like a client can now sue a pizza joint if he or she gets food poisoning. And finally, because if an adult woman or man wants to sell sexual favours, that is their business, and no-one else’s, period.
John Derbyshire, the UK-born commentator who writes for the right wing US publication National Review, has this comment, which reminds me of why I am not a conservative:
Prostitution, like drug trafficking, is one of those zones where libertarianism bumps up against the realities of human nature.
Wrong. Prostitution and drug trafficking, which are both illegal, demonstrate perfectly the libertarian argument that if you ban trades between consenting adults (children are another matter), then criminals and the plain reckless will provide them, damaging society as a whole.
To a lover of liberty, it is hard to see why a woman shouldn’t sell her favors if she wants to. Trouble is, weak or dimwitted women end up in near-slavery to unscrupulous men, and I think there’s a legitimate public interest in not letting that happen.
Oh come on. One might as well say that liberty is only for intelligent, smart people who write for right-wing Washington magazines. Of course, unintelligent, feeble-minded people screw up, but the case for liberty is that people are better off if they are presumed to be best able to judge their own interests. The fact that some cannot do this does not overturn that point. Encouraging personal responsibility is good for society as a whole (sorry to use such a collectivist expression) even if it is true that some individuals are not good at taking such responsibility.
The best private sector solution would be a guild system, like the geishas had in old Japan. There’d be entry standards for the guild. Women would have to pass exams, and have some entertainment skills other than the obvious ones. The guild would police itself, expelling miscreants. Freelancing outside the guild could be under strong social disapproval, even made illegal.
He is talking about a form of trade union closed shop for prostitutes, sanctioned by law. But then what about the businesses that try to gouge concessions from politicians to get into these closed-shop deals? How would such ‘guilds’ be able to start up? What about registration fees? I can see a wonderful opportunity for political and business corruption here.
No, sometimes we ideologues have it right: the simplest, most radical option is also the most practical one. Even if you morally disapprove of prostitution – I do not – as a practical matter, legalising it makes lots of sense. Compared to what goes on down in most parliaments, prostitution is a noble calling.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/03/legalizing-pros.html#comments
latest topic too – of world’s oldest profession
The ‘stupid people won’t do the right thing’ argument is possibly the most insidious argument against liberty.
Its used by left and right to justify removal of liberty.
I’ve heard it used to justify everything from forcing people to use state provided doctors to argue that the poor are stupid and need wise benevolent government to look after them.
I’m all for legalising the damn thing, however as with free immigration there is some inherent problems with legalising prostitution in a welfare state.
‘If you don’t take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'(Link)
I wonder has anyone ever been forced to work in the drugs trade in a similar situation.
Encouraging personal responsibility is good for society as a whole (sorry to use such a collectivist expression)
Al right, swinging off topic a little, I know, but I can’t let this pass unprotested.
Despite anything Maggie may, or may not, have said, society exists, and it is sensible and rational to acknowledge that.
My objection, as a libertarian, is not to collectivism or collective action per se but to government mandated enforced collectivism. It is the conflation of society with government action I object to.
Society, in my world, exists, but is based on freely co-operating individuals, not state enforced slavery.
You people are aware that prostitution is legal in the UK, yes? Soliciting on the street isn’t, and brothels aren’t, but prostitution itself is. The problem we have is that shit-for-brains Harriet Harman and others are pushing to prohibit it at the moment.
“Oh come on. One might as well say that liberty is only for intelligent, smart people who write for right-wing Washington magazines. Of course, unintelligent, feeble-minded people screw up, but the case for liberty is that people are better off if they are presumed to be best able to judge their own interests. The fact that some cannot do this does not overturn that point.”
This whole segment of your argument assumes that we can categorise all individuals as intelliegent or not, feeble-mided or not and capable of judging their own interests, or not.
We can’t. Every individual is at times unintelligent, feeble-minded and incapable of judging his/ner interests, including you Mr Samizdata, and there are some temptations which are both destructive to every individual who might fall prey to them (which is to say, everybody), and highly damaging to the quality of life of the community as a whole if a meaningful number of people do succumb. Proscribing such activites does assist people to resist temptation and thus benefits both every individual and the community as a whole. It’s the same principle whether the prohibition is total, in the case of hard drugs, or partial, in the case of limiting the availaibility of presciption drugs or alcohol. As for prostitution, it is demeaning for both participants but most potentially damaging to women. My belief is that a partial proscription is necessary in the form of regualation, whose main purpose would be to protect women from manipulation and subjugation.
However what strikes me is that it is the same narcissism that underlies the extreme libertararian view (“I’m so perfect but if you can’t be, suffer the consequences”) as the extreme anti-libertarian view (“I’m so perfect I should dictate how everyone else lives”). Diametrically opposed extreme views so often end up in the same place. In this case they seem to start there.
Your first sentence is your real reason for prohibition (a personal moral distaste you wish to oppose on others with different views), your second an ad hoc justification of that. There’s no reason to suppose that fully legal prostitutes in a society will be any more manipulated and subjugated that workers in agriculture, supermarkets or clothing factories. But we do know that the more grey, or black, an industry is forced to be, the more it is run by criminals and the people within it are subject to danger. Prohibition creates violence and abuse.
Your argument, if it were correct, would apply potentially to any industry. Why do you treat prostitution as different? Because you’re morally opposed to it.
You’re entitled to hold that view. But then, vegetarians are morally opposed to the meat industry and Greens to virtually all industry, but that doesn’t mean we should ban those industries on spurious worker protection grounds. The whole “protecting women” argument is a smokescreen for moral distaste- anti-campaigners use it to avoid sounding like the prudes they are.
Fundamentally, if you believe people should be “protected” from making life choices which may be wrong (either in their own, or in others’ eyes) then you’re arguing for the fascist control of all commerce by the wise government and an end to any personal liberty. “Demeaning” is in the eye of the beholder.
Agreed in principle. I do think it is a ridiculous waste of time to interfere with consenting adults, with the emphasis on ‘consenting’ and ‘adults’.
Here is a question for you, Johnathan and readers:
Whilst I accept my street is public property on which anyone not in jail is free to use, I’d still consider a brothel in my street to be a nuisance.
I also consider public officials on the public payroll (whether elected or employed) who like to abuse their powers to unjustifiably meddle in our affairs also to be nuisance. If they do visit a brothel, I wouldn’t mind having their hypocrisy to be put in to the public domain.
One way to curb either group of pests would be to secretly photograph from the public street the customers as they enter the establishment and publish such photos on the internet or in a newspaper or on TV. It would make a great regular spot at the end of Newsnight.
Am I free to do that?
One way to curb either group of pests would be to secretly photograph from the public street the customers …
Am I free to do that?
Yes, I don’t concede that there is any right to privacy in public. What a person may do on a public street is public information. What they may do on private property is a different matter, by virtue of the property being private.
However, I am not happy about you photographing in secret. If you wish to act in public, then do it publicly.
Ian B,
Yes, I was aware of that. Unfortunately the legal situation is like saying you’re free to buy a cat but you can’t advise kittens for sale at the newsagent and cat-breeders shall be prosecuted which is nuts.
Harriet Harman is, amongst many other bad things, a hypocrite. She wants to stop Joe Public having a hand shandy at the ol’ rub an’ tug but is perfectly happy to be part of a government which has colluded with BAE Systems & the Saudis to cover-up undoubtedly the biggest deal in the history of the UK vice-trade. I mean those Saudi princelings weren’t taken down to Pizza Express a couple of times, were they?
And talking of the ol’ rub an’ tug… There was one just round the corner from where I used to live. Never caused any hassle… My wife used to sometimes chat with the ladies of negotiable virtue in the queue at the corner shop while they were buying milk. They bought a lot of milk. If it was slow they’d watch a lot of daytime TV and drink a lot of tea. There are a lot of knocking shops in M19 and the only time I ever saw any hassle was when a giggling (clearly dared) school-boy had to be bounced from Jackie’s Gentleman’s Health Club…
Of course I agree with JP’s arguments. I’ll go further… I suspect the operators of legal brothels would be punctilious about STIs because just one case of clap could ruin them. This isn’t a restaurant serving a couple of dodgy prawns, afterall.
Measures against prostitution are an example of the unbelievable arrogance of the ruling class. Have they ever pondered why it’s called “The Oldest Profession”? They really are a bunch of Cnuts believing that legislating make’s it so. In extreme cases, which I shall now dub Cnut-Picard Syndrome they think they can “make it so” just by saying it.
Just one more point. The “Guild” idea is ludicrous. What’s he want to call them… The Seamstresses? I mean the medieval guilds had a few trade secrets and stuff but… Well, I think we can safely assume the cat is well and truly out of the bag on what being a Seamstress involves…
I assume at least some of our Lords & Masters know why the road the Bank of England is situated at is called Threadneedle Street (after Darling’s budgetry antics yesterday – “Bent Over & Forceably Sodomized With a Traffic Cone Street” might be more appropriate). Threadneedle was a bowdlerization of it’s previous incarnation as Grope Cunt Lane. Terrible thing, gentrification.
PS Yes, I do know the real story of King Cnut and quite what his point was.
Any more than a pub, kebab shop, nightclub, pig farm or glue factory? What’s special about brothels?
What hypocrisy? Why shouldn’t public officials or anyone else visit a legal business?
Well, presumably, in the same way as you could photograph people entering your local pub if you were that petty-minded, or as vegetarians “naming and shaming” customers at the butchers shop, come to that. It looks rather like weenie intimidation, though. You might expect the brothel’s owners to retaliate in some way by invading your privacy, so you’d better make sure your life is pure as the driven snow.
This is a problem for libertarians of course, that some people in society are basically twats.
Advertise kittens – obviously.
Adrian,
So, if everyone has their “moments of madness” then who should be nanny? Tell ya what, next time you’re putting up a shelf I’ll come round your house and tell ya exactly how to do it in case you’re struck by “feeble-mindedness”!
I agree with Ian B that you are projecting your personal feelings onto everyone else. Anyway, how do you know prostitution is demeaning? I have never had an interest in paying for sex but I’m not prepared to opine on what it would actually feel like… I hate the “demeaning” line. It is invariably used by people who have a moral or religious objection but don’t have the cojones to state it as such.
And as far as keeping people from temptation… Why not burkhas? Then we’d have no sex crimes at all! Just like Saudi Arabia.
Effing and Blinding,
The average UK knocking shop of my experience is not a nuisance. It doesn’t even cause parking problems. Understandably the clients tend to park a way off then use the rear entrance.
*fnarr fnarr*
It’s more a matter of “I’m not perfect, and neither are you, so who the hell are you to tell me how to behave?”
I’ve dealt with a few prostitutes. Not often and not recently, as it’s not a vice common where I work. I take that back: public solicitation for prostitution is not a vice common where I work. And the fact that it’s a crime to buy, sell, or rent one’s genitalia did not do a damn bit of good for the prostitutes. Maybe forcing the whole mess out into the light won’t cure everything, but leaving it a crime merely creates another barrier to the victims seeking whatever help it is that they need to seek.
“But they will not seek help unless forced, say by a judge.”
And compulsory “help” never does a damn bit of good, at least not with drugs, domestic abuse situations, mental health problems (all of which are common among prostitutes) or with pimps. Were it legal, maybe a few of them would come forward to police for protection instead of seeking it from the pimps.
Bringing the whole thing into the sunlight won’t fix everything, but leaving it in the shadows hasn’t helped anything.
Nick M:
That’s been the experience over here as well. Prostitution is legal in Nevada, and there used to be a well-known brothel called the “Mustang Ranch.” Supposedly, their disease-prevention procedures were more thorough than the methods that my doctor’s office uses. And for exactly that reason: one person catches la SIDA from one of their staff, and the entire place is out of business and the staff’s names are mud forevermore.
Nonsense. Ian B has already taken apart your argument for tightly regulating such things, and done so far better than I could, so let me deal with this comment. “Narcissism” has nothing to do with libertarianism, nor does libertarianism base itself on the idea that humans are perfect. Libertarians realise that humans have flaws, such as the lust for power over others, for example, or the dangers of concentrating power in very few hands, or in imposing moral codes on people for no better reason than that such people think they are entitled to rule our lives. The worst narcissists are people who want to fashion their idea of a perfect society, by force.
Of course, libertarians usually start from the premise that people are sovereign over their own bodies and minds, and that usually stems from a basic belief that we are competent to live our lives as we see fit, and moreover, we are entitled to be happy in that pursuit. If you think that is narcissism, then you are using language lazily.
I don’t get why Spitzer made you think of this. I agree with many of your points, but Spitzer and the prostitute is something different. he should go because of what he did to his family. Not because prostitution is illegal or legal. he should still go even if prostitution was legal – it’s not the kind of leader Democrats want or the type of husband his wife wants either. More on this in my blog at http://angryafrican.net/2008/03/10/if-only-spitzer-was-french/
Sure, just as the victims of your pathetic vindictiveness are free to follow you around like a crazed Scientologist, gradually driving you out of your small mind. Deal?
Well, I couldn’t resist.
I wish I’d taken a picture of one when they put up a temporary sign saying, “Rear entrance now open” under the banner sign saying “Jackie’s”.
The reason I didn’t is that, keen photographer though I am, I don’t tend to take pics of knocking shops because I am not a prevert.
Ian B, I never doubted you were au fait with Newcastle’s finest smut.
Angry African, you miss the point. Spitzer prosecuted organisers of prostitution rings. Ergo, he made a legal name for himself as a moraliser on said topic; hence his disgrace now. But if prostitution were legalised, then Spitzer and other political operators would have to use their talents rather more productively. legalising this would remove another source of trouble from the likes of him.
I am sure that even if it were legal, his behaviour would upset voters, but you cannot legislate for what goes on in people’s minds.
that usually stems from a basic belief that we are competent to live our lives as we see fit,
Would that this were true.
No, sorry. My views are much more pessimistic than that. Incompetent as I may be to run my own life, I simply fail to see any reason to believe that anyone else is more competent to make decisions on my behalf.
Recent history reinforces my opinion on both views.
Sunfish wrote:
Bingo. That, rather that some utopianism, is exactly why I want a small limited state that minds it own damn business.
Johnathan & Ian,
Sorry, you misinterpreted my question which in hindsight was clumsily expressed.
I’ve got no intention of sitting around photographing anyone, and I was painting a hypothetical scenario.
I’ll have another go.
Should public officials who like butting into our lives on the terms and at the time and on the subject matter THEY select have any moral ground to object when we (the public or individuals within it – say, newspapers) turn the tables and butt into their lives on the terms and on the subject matter and at the time WE select – say, by being photographed entering a brothel (regardless of whether the brothel is legal or not).
I find the turning of the tables quite delicious, and I think this is at the core of the delight I feel about Spitzer’s fate, though I don’t rejoice in the presumed agony of his family.
As for the point I made about brothels being a nuisance, I did live across the road from one in Melbourne (Oz) 10 years ago, and it was terrible. Rubbish on our front garden, noise, fights – it was terrible. Came home one night to find one of the drugged out women having a pee on my porch. Disgusting. Maybe it is different here in the UK?
Having been single recently I’ve used a couple of online dating sites, with mixed amounts of frustration and success. Recently I was chatting with one young lady from such a site and I suggested we meet for coffee and she replied that for a certain sum per hour we could skip the coffee. Said sum was comparable to dinner and a show for two and I’ve been getting frustrated by the run around many members of dating sites give you so thought “what the hell .. you only live once”.
To my surprise it was a very nice experience. She was young (25), attractive, intelligent, affectionate, enthusiastic, skilled. We ran over time and cuddled and talked for quite a while afterwards.
I’d prefer to have a real relationship again (once I recover from the scars of the last one), but frankly the whole thing seemed preferable to 90% of the amateurs I’ve met on dating sites.
Ian B
I didn’t argue for Prohibition. My view is that prostitution is an activity that should be legal but regulated in order that it can take place with reduced damage to the individuals involved and the community.
And yes, this is an argument that would apply to any industry and already does; the Health and Safety at Work Act, for instance.
Nick M
Putting up shelves? Burkhas? WTF?
Johnathan Pearce
Ian B has made an argument against a point I hadn’t made.
I agree that narcissism on the Left has very unpleasant consequences and I don’t disagree with your statement of the starting premises of libertarianism. However the particular segment of your post that I highlighted treats the world as there are two types of people and one type, i.e. you and other right-minded folk, should not be hampered by the failings of the others. That is narcissistic by any definition and I think too much of your subsequent argument depends on this false classification.
Yes, I was aware of that. Unfortunately the legal situation is like saying you’re free to buy a cat but you can’t advise kittens for sale at the newsagent and cat-breeders shall be prosecuted which is nuts.
It may be nuts, but I believe the California legislature recently passed such an act, requiring all pets to be rendered incapable of breeding, fining owners who do not do so, and allowing only licensed breeders to have fertile cats. Of course, a cynic might say that this is better explainable not as insanity but as rent-seeking, in that it forces those who want to own cats to buy them from breeders at prices inflated by selling to people who want show cats. My own cats have always been street cats with no breeding whatsoever, and I’ve found them quite satisfactory.
Adrian, what regulation are you proposing?
anonymous,
If you liked the girl, why not date her ?
“Brother and sister fight Germany’s incest laws”
Would you propose to legalize incest ?
Nice one, Jacob. The difference between incest and what we’re discussing is that prostitution involves an act which is already legal (sex between consenting adults) and simply prohibits commercialisation of it. It’s like saying I can give you a pint of beer, but I can’t sell you one.
The two things are completely different.
Adrian asserts that libertarians’ view of the world is that “there are two types of people and one type, i.e. you and other right-minded folk, should not be hampered by the failings of the others.” What abject nonsense. As a libertarian, I believe that I am just as fallible as anyone else, but I am prepared to accept the consequences when I err and I expect you to allow me to do so. I also extend to you the same respect. Unfortunately, respect for others’ choices is a quality which sactimonious pseudomoralists such as Adrian and his ilk are sadly lacking. Ian B has it exactly right: Adrian’s arguments are nothing more than specious camoflage for his moral distaste for prostitution. Such distaste is, of course, his perogative, but projecting it only everyone else is not.
Jonathan P. has it exactly right, and I love his last sentence (I’ll probably use it myself).
I imagine almost all the Samizdata writers, and probably even most Samizdata readers would indeed like to legalise incest between consenting adults.
Ian B,
Why? It’s an act between consenting adults. If it’s illegal – why is it illegal ? Why do you think it should be illegal?
I didn’t say it should be illegal, Jacob. I said the two things are different, just as if in the middle of a discussion on the legal status of homosexuality you’d said, “What about baby buggery? Should we legalise that?”.
They’re just not the same kind of thing. You appear to be trying to make the thing we’re discussing look morally worse, by a false parallel to something which is generally considered to be considerably morally worse.
So, that would be an interesting discussion, but it has no relevance to the current topic.
In general I’m wary of radical “solutions”. Leave the oldest profession alone, in the murky state it is, legal in some places, illegal in others, practiced everywhere, and rarely prosecuted (mostly it’s the pimps who are prosecuted).
Legalization has a teutonic sound to it. Well regulated, government licensed, tax paying establishments. Registered and licensed practitioners… government inspectors… No, but no, thanks. Let it stay illegal. I like the idea of some affairs being extra-legal – it’s probably some anarchistic instinct.
Why ?
It’s not the same topic, I agree, but it’s not unrelated. It’s a close cousin. We might learn something about the principles involved. Why is it ok for the state to intervene in the incest case but wrong in the prostitution case ? What are the different principles involved ?
I’d comment, but I just finished reading Heinlein’s “To Sail beyond the Sunset”, so I’m not sure I can come up with a practical reason to oppose *even* procreative incest.
As I said, a prohibition on prostitution is the prohibition of commercialising an activity which is legal, normal, and everyday. It’s not saying that any two particular persons can’t have sex, it’s saying they can’t do so for commercial reasons. It’s not prohibiting an activity, it’s prohibiting that activity only when commercial.
A prohibition on incest is a prohibition on the activity itself.
But for what it’s worth, on a pragmatic level the only real justification for banning incest is the potential for genetic harm to progeny, which is a matter for a debate on what rights the state has to protect children from their parents (as with abortion, effectively).
On an emotional level, like most men I find the idea of incest repellent and creepy and stomach-churning, unless it’s attractive young sisters, ideally twins, in which case it is a most wonderful and beautiful thing.
Now, I’m not endorsing it but isn’t incest a “Great Game All The Family” can play?
Quite what incest has to do with prostitution is beyond me. My sister always let me ride for free.
Adrian,
You mention Health & Safety. I believe that’s enough said, really.
Now, let’s all relax and let nanny take hand…
I feel the same. Maybe the taboo against incest has deep historical and traditional roots that cannot be fully explained in plain words.
The question remains: should the state intervene and make incest illegal ?
I can’t say I have a clear cut answer to this.
But, in fighting against the state’s infringement on private liberty, this issue (incest) is the last on my list of priorities. Same for legalization of prostitution. I’m for it in principle, but in practice I don’t give a damn.
What does his job have to do with his family? His wife can make his life hell if she is so inclined without him resigning. The only reason he should go is because a big part of his recent job was prosecuting the same kind of prostitution rings he has been patronizing. Ideally, had he been in any other line of work, this incident should have no bearing on his employment.
anonymous,
If you liked the girl, why not date her ?
Well that’s easy. Because given the large differences in age and finances and attractiveness this particular woman would not do so without “presents”.
I have a lot of trouble understanding why anyone would pay the reported US$2300 for an hour. What on earth could possibly make that a good deal? But when the hourly rate is the same (or less!) as I myself charge for on-the-side (and under-the-table) computer consulting I think “give it to me instead of spending it on impressing me” doesn’t seem to be an entirely unreasonable thing to contemplate.
Anonymous, I’d imagine it’s largely a “luxury pricing” thing. People want to pay a lot for luxury goods. Think of the price of perfume; it’s not the smell that matters, it’s the price. If some perfume that costs £1000 per drop were knocked down to a tenner a litre, the customers wouldn’t buy it because its luxury value would be lost.
Somebody like Spitzer, full of his own arsey importance, wouldn’t want a “cheap hooker”. He wants to believe he’s buying the very best on the market, an exclusive courtesan.
But for what it’s worth, on a pragmatic level the only real justification for banning incest is the potential for genetic harm to progeny, which is a matter for a debate on what rights the state has to protect children from their parents (as with abortion, effectively).
I don’t believe that incest is banned for pragmatic reasons. If the reason for banning it were the concern with possible births of defective children, then we could expect the following policies to follow on from that premise:
* If a married couple produce a child with a genetic defect of a sort that has a substantial probability of recurring in later children, their marriage should be dissolved and sexual relations between them should be classed as incestuous.
* If a woman is of an age where the risk of birth defects is as high as that from inbreeding, she should be forbidden to have children, or perhaps to engage in sex at all. (Note that the Merck Manual says that the added risk from sex between first cousins is only around 3%—but some jurisdictions class that as incestuous.)
* Sexual relations between two brothers, or between two sisters, should not be subject to criminal penalties and should not produce any feeling of revulsion.
* Incest laws should not be taken as prohibiting oral or anal copulation between persons within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity.
I don’t believe any of these predictions are supported.
The cultural anthropologists, who deal professionally with the incest taboos of different cultures, had not agreed on a reason for their existence, the last I looked. One popular theory is that in tribal societies, you can’t survive without people you can call on for aid when you’re hungry, sick, or threatened. Families that allow their children to marry each other have no inlaws and thus no potential allies, and are much more likely to die off, with the side effect that the custom of incestuous marriage dies off too. On the other hand, the availability of aid from lending institutions, insurance companies, organized charities, and government agencies has not led to the disappearance of strictures against incest, either.
anonymous,
In addition to the snob effect that Ian B points out (I agree), I’d guess this was also payment for (perceived) privacy as well. Did not exactly work as planned.
Another factor in the pricing is probably relative cost. Spitzer comes from an extremely wealthy family. To someone with $100 mln in wealth, $1000/hour is roughly the same as $1/hour to someone with $100 K in wealth (“roughly” because of other factors, such as current income, income expectations, non-discretionary spending, liquidity of assets, etc.) $1 an hour sounds like a decent deal to me.
Why not just date her?
Well, she might be too good for you, or you are too good for her.
You might enjoy her beauty and charm, but find her conversation in the long run to be boring.
You might be too old for her.
If you enjoy her company for an hour or two, you might not for hours on end. Vice versa.
If you are paying for her time, she makes sure you get your money’s worth. She is not late, bitchy, and she is groomed immaculately. She is there just for you. Her focus is to make you enjoy the experience.
After your time is up, you both go your separate ways. There is no guilt, no assumed dependence one on the other. Nobody feels used. Nobody feels under an obligation to get back with the other one.
If the time spend was worthwhile for each party, they can repeat the encounter. If not, they will never see each other again.
This is called civilized behavior. You got a problem with this just because money changes hands?
All these arguments seem logical, well thought out, and reasonable on the surface, much like the arguments for communism I’ve read. Looks good on paper, but how do these ideas play out in the real world?
The purpose of laws is to prevent abuse of the weak by the powerful. All the arguments here seem to spring from a desire to have complete freedom (as long as you are not hurting anyone), and the denial that ‘victimless’ crimes really do have victims.
Prostitution. What little girl grows up thinking “one day, I can be free and respect myself through selling my body to men who see me as a sexual object.” Just dismissing people who say prostitution is morally wrong as religious tyrants is SO easy.
Along the way to becoming a prostitute someone has lost their humanity and dignity. Very often they’ve been abused or are addicted to drugs. Making a law against it is society’s way of expressing that this is not good, healthy or normal. Either for the prostitute or the john.
Nobody wants their sister or anyone else who they know and love to be a hooker, but when it’s someone else’s sister some people are ok with it. What does that say about how that person has been de-humanized?
Children working in factories were once an accepted and normal sight. I’m sure people who benefitted argued that the children gave consent, and if not, that the parents gave consent. All true. Is there any way a libertarian can say “this is wrong!” unless “the government” (or in other words the majority of citizens) steps in and makes the moral decision that children are unable to give consent? Child labor was also once viewed as a victimless. But today most would agree it wasn’t.
Telling kids that anything goes causes self destructive behavior. Society as a whole needs to state which things are wrong, otherwise how can parents do that when they’re legalized? That normalizes these behaviors.
And what’s the libertarian response… That person should have known better… he or she is over the age of consent… everyone is responsible for their own lives and she made that choice?
Seems simplistic… and somewhat inhuman to me.
Define “powerful”, and define “victim”. What you are trying to do is to interpose your judgement on what sort of consenting relations adults ought to have and then you make a judgement on whether people making those agreements are sensible, silly or just plain weak. So you decide that the state should regulate/ban etc, such things. Strip away all the paternalistic commentary and your comment comes off as little better than saying that you know how to live people’s lives better than they do.
As for the stuff about children, I think that what “society” needs more than anything these days is the message that actions have consequences, and part of growing up to be an adult is to take responsibility and stop trying to demand that the state or some other agency do that for us. You don’t like the idea of men/women buying or selling sexual favours. You are entitled to act on your private view, of course.
Since when has respecting the wishes of consenting adults been like communism or “inhuman”, by the way?
I should of course add that this debate is about relations between adults. As for children, in my view there has to be, however arbitrary, some concept of an age of consent. That’s a different issue.
Sarah has a point.
I wouldn’t recomment to my daughter to be a prostitute since the pay is good, and life is easy.
Prostitution is repulsive, even if not criminal. On this, I think, we can all agree.
Do we need state intervention and legislation ? My libertarian instinct tells me: no.
Still, there are so many instances of private rights to fight for… this issue (legalization of prostitution) is not high on my agenda. In fact, I prefer to stay out of it, and am willing to accept the status quo.
The main reason that most people find prostitution repulsive is the societal (not to mention legal) stigma attached to it. Without it things would look quite different, although obviously not for everyone. If I had a daughter, I wouldn’t want her to clean houses for a living either (something I used to do when I was poor), and the reason is not stigma, because there isn’t one attached to cleaning houses (well, there is, but a much milder one). The reason is that it is a very difficult and often unpleasant work, and, most importantly, one that can only be pursued as a temporary occupation, because otherwise it leads to a dead end. The same is true for prostitution, the only difference being the stigma.
Not true.
If I had a poor daughter I would prefer that she did house cleaning and not prostitution. They are not equivalent. Prostitution isn’t just a low, boring, dead-end ocupation – it’s worse, and for intrinsic reasons, not because of the stigma.
Well, it is for you. I see nothing morally wrong with it, although neither do I see it as a desirable occupation, for the reasons I mentioned, including the stigma.
I don’t know about “morally”. But it seems somehow disgusting.
By the way, why did you do house cleaning and not prostitution ? Prostitution pays more. Because of the stigma ? No personal preference ? (Sorry for the personal question, you don’t have to answer).
Yes, because of the stigma, and also for reasons that are the result of that stigma, namely that prostitution operates in the realm of criminals and just plain old scum.
You are not sorry, since you did not have to ask, as the answer was obvious from everything I said above.
So what is it that makes prostitution disgusting? Is it because there are no “romantic” feelings involved, or because money changes hands?
Not the money. It makes a personal matter impersonal. It trivializes something which should be important.
Don’t you think it’s somehow indecorous, undignified, disgusting in short ? Especially if it becomes a steady occupation, that prostitutes do every day, several times a day… The stigma is there for a reason…
I’m not talking about men keeping a concubine, i.e. having a relation with a woman which they support with money. I’m talking about prostitution, brothels, hookers…
I am talking about the same thing. Sex in itself is not always decorous or dignified, and is sometimes disgusting. This has nothing to do with how often it is done. Of course, there is a problem that when one has to do something, it is possible that it will stop being something that one enjoys, but this goes for other occupations as well, and it is not unavoidable. If it were not for the stigma, it could be just like any other dead-end job, with all the pluses and minuses.
Sure, but not the one you think. It is not stigmatized because it is disgusting, but rather it is the other way around: it is considered disgusting because of the stigma attached to it.
We’ll probably have to agree to disagree.
I don’t think prostitution is just like any other tedious job (like typist, cashier, factory worker, or house cleaner). It is a category apart, whether you find it disgusting or not.
I think it would be disgusting even if no one knew you did it, and therefore, you did not suffer from the social stigma.
For example: I don’t think one finds sex enjoyable with just any partner – people discriminate, they select partners that somehow atract them. Even when one uses a prostitute, he selects one he likes. The prostitute, on the other hand, doesn’t get to choose. That alone is disgusting.
The whole topic is disgusting, and I did a mistake that I ever commented on this thread….
It is and it isn’t. It mostly has to do with our attitude towards sex in general. If we treated sex just like any other human interaction, we would have treated prostitution just like any other profession.
Sure. But what about dentists, cosmeticians, or the people who work in nursing homes, changing old people’s diapers? I find all of these jobs repulsive to various degrees. Having to have sex with someone I am not attracted to is in the same category.
Well, now it really got disgusting, so I won’t blame you for dropping it here:-|
Dentists stick their fingers in your mouth. They don’t let you stick your fingers in the dentist’s mouth.
That’s a terrible argument, if we can even dignify it with the word, Jacob. One might say that there are lots of infringements on the freedoms of adults (let’s keep the kids out of this argument) that one does not “give a damn” about, such as to do with the war on drugs, infringements on the Common law protections of the individual, etc. The danger is that you only care about infringements that might affect you personally.
The whole point of liberty is a willingness, even eagerness, to defend the freedoms of people you don’t happen to like. Such as hookers, foxhunters, socialists, Greens, anti-Greens, etc.
Maybe. But life is short, one has one’s priorities.
I somehow gave up the urge to urgently, and radically, reform everything.
I’m willing to leave prostitution laws alone.
Also, the German orderly lagalization, with state inspection of brothels, unionized prostitutes etc. – I don’t like it.
There is also a tactical point which you might not like, but it exists: libertarians are too few, and haven’t got any chance to forward anything of their agenda without collaboration with some conservatives. Prostitution isn’t a subject that is worth having a row with conservatives over.
So?
So? I am under no illusions that advancing freedom is a slow process. But it is good to discuss stuff other than say, the EU, or Iraq, or whatever big issues get flagged up by the MSM. Sometimes, unfashionable issues, like legalisation of prostitution, are useful in demonstrating that liberty is a seamless thing.
Tactically, that means libertarians should keep quiet and pretend to be social authortarians, supporting things like the ruinous war on drugs, or military conscription, or censorship of views they don’t like, or pointless foreign wars, or forms of cultural protectionism, etc.? This argument is absolute bollocks, Jacob. No conservative allies worthy of the name would respect us for a second if we brushed our views under the carpet. In any event, it is not even clear that conservatives make very good allies anyway, or that their agenda is the same as ours, even on the big economic stuff.
Admit it, Jacob: you think it is okay for consenting adults to be banned from paying for sex and you would rather we did not challenge the absurdity of this. Sorry, no deal.
Okay, I’ll admit it. I see nothing terribly wrong with the current state of affairs in this domain.
Nobody’s banned from paying for sex. The sex trade thrives, as it always has and will. Whatever laws there are – they aren’t enforced. It’s just fine and dandy. I see no need for German style legalization, regulation and worse state interference that might come with formal legalization. I know you don’t favor regulation – but in our reality, state regulation will follow legalization.
I’m not a stark legalist, shocked at the idea that some laws are ignored, and some activities are carried out outside the legal framework.
So when I read of stories about X or Y being jailed for living off immoral earnings, or soliciting, etc, that was just a figment of my imagination. The laws are not always enforced, I am sure – very few laws are.
I did not argue for “German style legalisation” (why Germany, by the way?). I argued for legalisation, full stop. No ifs, buts, state qualifications, nada zip. Legalisation.
It may be that in reality, legalisation may involve some state interference. If brothels are allowed, they’ll be taxed like any other business, and there will no doubt be all the usual health and safety regs., insurance contracts and the like. But for the reaons I gave in the post – please re-read it – this is preferable because it will drive out organised crime, reduce sexually transmitted disease, and so on.
It will also make it much less profitable.
On second thought, not necessarily…
Read the first link in the comments.
I mean this link, in the third comment.
‘If you don’t take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'(Link)