Not Buying It - From Either of You
Good arguments from both sides here, but I’m not buying the “victimless crime” angle nor am I enamored with Ed’s passionate defense of individual worth, although from the standpoint of logic, I would have to give Mr. Morrissey the nod.
Libertarians have a blind spot when it comes to extrapolating human behavior beyond the immediate actions of the individual. This serves well when dealing with basic freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, etc. But by not looking beyond so-called “victimless” crimes and actually seeing the devastation wrought by drugs on families or the pain caused by husbands straying or prostitutes degrading themselves, Libertarians can reduce all human interaction to either individual choice or the choice made by two or more individuals in compact. Yes a single, unattached man isn’t hurting anyone by going to a prostitute nor is a single drug addict with no children. But is that how you promulgate law? I think not.
And Ed’s human worth argument has a few holes too. People may not be “commodities” but we all have jobs where we are paid money for the skills we possess. Is there really a difference between being a good programmer and a talented prostitute? Each is paid according to their “worth” or whatever the market will bear. I agree with Ed that you can’t qualify sex and put a price on it nor can you do the same with a woman’s body part. But stripped to its essentials, we are either all of us whores for taking money for something we do well or whores actually have less worth than the rest of us.
I would be more open to an argument that took into account the fact that prostitution as a practical matter causes more problems for society than can be justified by appeals to “individual liberty.” The same can be said for drugs and even alcohol although practicality precludes banning booze. Too many commercial interests. And far too many imbibers (4 times the number of people who do illegal drugs). That doesn’t mean we should all jump on the “War on Drugs” bandwagon anymore than we should hop on board the anti-prostitution express. It just means that there is a set of human behaviors that places burdens on society and should be discouraged. Sending people to jail for having a small amount of drugs for personal use or seizing their property because a roach was found in a car’s ashtray is silly. But so is making it legal to threaten your own health and the well being of your family by ingesting drugs. Addiction is a personal problem - until the state has to pay for taking care of your family and you as a result of your “individual choice.”
And with prostitution, the self worth of the man or woman engaging in what is essentially an economic activity should take second place to the practical matter that even with a regulated sex industry, there is the spread of disease as well as violence - both of which place undue burdens on society. It’s not how much of a burden but rather the fact that it is an unnecessary one. For the same reason we oppose spending money on unwarranted public works projects and the like, we should oppose prostitution.
May 9th, 2007 at 8:19 am
[…] Moran of Right Wing Nut House has posted a rebuttal to my post about prostitution at Heading Right. Rick argues that my argument about […]
May 9th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
A little thingy on prostitution…
I got a whiff of this exchange from Captain’s Quarters in the form of a rebuttal of a rebuttal. In this exchange of rebuttals, they got very deep into the ethics of placing a value on personal services or something like that. It was too heavy…
May 9th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Rick Moran is a surrender monkey.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
If there were no increase in disease or violence would you then support legalized prostitution?
I’d bet if you did a search you’d find condom use by prostitutes higher than with any other group and that murders of spouses/lovers are higher than murders of prostitutes, esp if you factor out serial killers who target them exactly because their illegal status helps result in no one missing them when they disappear.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I agree that prostitution should be illegal but your justification — based on disease and violence — is unpersuasive. A one night stand for free is about as likely to spread disease or foster violence as one with a prostitute. In either case the social burden is equally unnecessary. (As an aside, does the money spent on sex not suggest that many folks find it very ‘necessary’ indeed?) We combat violence in the dating world by criminalizing the violence, not the sex.
May 9th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
“Addiction is a personal problem - until the state has to pay for taking care of your family and you as a result of your “individual choice.” ”
In and of itself this is a very dangerous argument. Almost every personal choice caries costs for society at large, and we should really focus only on those choices whose costs are excessive - not just “unnecesary”. Example du jour is obesity, which is a personal choice for almost anyone and causes large costs to society. But consider the cost to society of people doing what they like to do in stead of what they are good at.
There is a balance to each cost/benefit argument. Legal prostitution may actually lower transfers of sexual diseases because prostitutes know how to protect themselves, and are constantly monitored. Societies where prostitution is strongly discouraged tend to be very misogynistic and prone to extremism - several Middle Eastern countries come to mind.
In general, prostitution can be looked on as a symptom, just as unemployment or abortion. The best way to reduce it is not by outlawing it, but to fight its causes.