Do you think that punishing pornographers would right?

[Bressen]

so only ancaps can support the voluntary exchange of services?

Only ancaps support something that disproportionately harms people both psychologically and economically. Only a tiny minority of prostitution is brought out without economic or even physical coercion.

tfw when people paying you for sex harms you economically

[United Muscovite Nations]

Only ancaps support something that disproportionately harms people both psychologically and economically. Only a tiny minority of prostitution is brought out without economic or even physical coercion.

If prostitution is legal, prostitutes can get medical attention without worrying about getting in trouble and they can go to the police for help without worrying about being arrested.

You know, it's very rare that people actually get arrested or admitting to a crime in the process of reporting a much more important crime.

[Philjia]

so only ancaps can support the voluntary exchange of services?

Only ancaps support something that disproportionately harms people both psychologically and economically. Only a tiny minority of prostitution is brought out without economic or even physical coercion.

Banning it will not remove it. You can make it less prevalent by making sure that nobody feels the need to supply unless they really want to, but the laws of men cannot simply trump the laws of economics.

[Salandriagado]

so only ancaps can support the voluntary exchange of services?

Only ancaps support something that disproportionately harms people both psychologically and economically. Only a tiny minority of prostitution is brought out without economic or even physical coercion.

And that minority is exclusively where it is legal and regulated.

[New haven america]

You do realize that banning it will just: A) Make people want it more, B. Give the Pimps more power over their workers, and C. Makes it much harder for workers (Or slaves, in some cases, which illegal prostitution creates) to report client abuse or reporting the Pimps, right?

Also:
>uses greentext outside of 4chan
>supports a country who wants to recreate the ussr
>edginess intensifies

A) You could apply that to literally anything
B) Arrest the pimps
C) Give them real jobs and that won't happen.

I don't see why we should legalize something for the purpose of making organized crime less hard.

A. Exactly, which is why banning it is a stupid idea and you should fell bad for having that idea.
B. How are you supposed to arrest them if no one will tell the authorities about them?
C. Yeah, because that's so simple. Gee, why haven't we thought of this before?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Only ancaps support something that disproportionately harms people both psychologically and economically. Only a tiny minority of prostitution is brought out without economic or even physical coercion.

Banning it will not remove it. You can make it less prevalent by making sure that nobody feels the need to supply unless they really want to, but the laws of men cannot simply trump the laws of economics.

Yeah, so if that's our argument, why not legalize literally everything? You can't get rid of it.

[Randsbeik]

so only ancaps can support the voluntary exchange of services?

Only ancaps support something that disproportionately harms people both psychologically and economically. Only a tiny minority of prostitution is brought out without economic or even physical coercion.

I supported it when I was a centrist too, actually.

Also, I don't think legal porn would harm the economy. Especially pay-per-view.

[United Muscovite Nations]

A) You could apply that to literally anything
B) Arrest the pimps
C) Give them real jobs and that won't happen.

I don't see why we should legalize something for the purpose of making organized crime less hard.

A. Exactly, which is why banning it is a stupid idea and you should fell bad for having that idea.
B. How are you supposed to arrest them if no one will tell the authorities about them?
C. Yeah, because that's so simple. Gee, why haven't we thought of this before?

A) Okay, so why should murder be banned? You can never get rid of it.
B) How are you supposed to arrest them if they aren't committing a crime (i.e. prostitution)?
C) Actually, it is pretty simple if your government actually gives a shit about the people it governs rather than the pocketbooks of capital elites.

[Philjia]

Banning it will not remove it. You can make it less prevalent by making sure that nobody feels the need to supply unless they really want to, but the laws of men cannot simply trump the laws of economics.

Yeah, so if that's our argument, why not legalize literally everything? You can't get rid of it.

There is obviously an imperative to prohibit actions that generally cause actual bodily, financial, or psychological harm to others, and to restrict the actions of children who cannot be held responsible for their own actions, but aside from that there's little point in making anything illegal. It merely sweeps problems under the rug, rather than challenging them in the open.

[Bressen]

A. Exactly, which is why banning it is a stupid idea and you should fell bad for having that idea.
B. How are you supposed to arrest them if no one will tell the authorities about them?
C. Yeah, because that's so simple. Gee, why haven't we thought of this before?

A) Okay, so why should murder be banned? You can never get rid of it.
B) How are you supposed to arrest them if they aren't committing a crime (i.e. prostitution)?
C) Actually, it is pretty simple if your government actually gives a shit about the people it governs rather than the pocketbooks of capital elites.

A) murder does kind of cheekily infringe on people's human rights, whereas prostitution and literally any other service offered by a regulated market doesn't

[New haven america]

A. Exactly, which is why banning it is a stupid idea and you should fell bad for having that idea.
B. How are you supposed to arrest them if no one will tell the authorities about them?
C. Yeah, because that's so simple. Gee, why haven't we thought of this before?

A) Okay, so why should murder be banned? You can never get rid of it.
B) How are you supposed to arrest them if they aren't committing a crime (i.e. prostitution)?
C) Actually, it is pretty simple if your government actually gives a shit about the people it governs rather than the pocketbooks of capital elites.

A. Because unlike legal and regulated prostitution, murder provides nothing to people nor society (And actually does violate people's human rights, having sex with consent however, does not). That was easy.
B. Banning it will just make them more likely to be active, so they will be committing crimes.
C. Prostitution counts as a job, and maybe you should tell Putin what you said sometime...

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yeah, so if that's our argument, why not legalize literally everything? You can't get rid of it.

There is obviously an imperative to prohibit actions that generally cause actual bodily, financial, or psychological harm to others, and to restrict the actions of children who cannot be held responsible for their own actions, but aside from that there's little point in making anything illegal. It merely sweeps problems under the rug, rather than challenging them in the open.

Depending how loosely we define "psychological harm", then you could certainly apply it to ban prostitution.

[Philjia]

There is obviously an imperative to prohibit actions that generally cause actual bodily, financial, or psychological harm to others, and to restrict the actions of children who cannot be held responsible for their own actions, but aside from that there's little point in making anything illegal. It merely sweeps problems under the rug, rather than challenging them in the open.

Depending how loosely we define "psychological harm", then you could certainly apply it to ban prostitution.

Others, not the person themselves. Psychological harm tends to be pretty big league stuff anyway to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

[United Muscovite Nations]

A) Okay, so why should murder be banned? You can never get rid of it.
B) How are you supposed to arrest them if they aren't committing a crime (i.e. prostitution)?
C) Actually, it is pretty simple if your government actually gives a shit about the people it governs rather than the pocketbooks of capital elites.

A. Because unlike legal and regulated prostitution, murder provides nothing to people nor society (And actually does violate people's human rights, having sex with consent however, does not). That was easy.
B. Banning it will just make them more likely to be active, so they will be committing crimes.
C. Prostitution counts as a job, and maybe you should tell Putin that sometime...

A) Hitmen would certainly disagree. Also, human rights are really no different than just another moralistic system, so that argument isn't really any stronger than mine for banning prostitution.
B) "People do illegal things more often", basically; Okay, so banning murder therefore means more murder, so we should legalize murder.
C) You're the one who said you love corruption earlier in the thread, so I don't see why you think I'm more of a Putin-lover than you.

[The Federation of Kendor]

From what I read in a book and on the internet, yes

Well hi there, HAL9000.

Hi there. Do you want to go to the Monolith?

But seriously, I don't want to be called an AI

[United Muscovite Nations]

Depending how loosely we define "psychological harm", then you could certainly apply it to ban prostitution.

Others, not the person themselves. Psychological harm tends to be pretty big league stuff anyway to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

So, why should we allow people to harm themselves?

[Randsbeik]

Others, not the person themselves. Psychological harm tends to be pretty big league stuff anyway to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

So, why should we allow people to harm themselves?

Why is it our job to protect people from themselves?

[United Muscovite Nations]

So, why should we allow people to harm themselves?

Why is it our job to protect people from themselves?

Why is it our job to protect people from others?

[Galloism]

Others, not the person themselves. Psychological harm tends to be pretty big league stuff anyway to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

So, why should we allow people to harm themselves?

I mean, you could go down the path that personal freedoms are not important and the state has a duty to protect people from their own irresponsibility by taking over their decision making for them, but the logical conclusion thereof is absurd and the cure likely worse than the disease.

[Salandriagado]

Banning it will not remove it. You can make it less prevalent by making sure that nobody feels the need to supply unless they really want to, but the laws of men cannot simply trump the laws of economics.

Yeah, so if that's our argument, why not legalize literally everything? You can't get rid of it.

Very nearly everything, yes.

[Bressen]

Why is it our job to protect people from themselves?

Why is it our job to protect people from others?

because if anyone's going to kill me it's going to be me

[New haven america]

A. Because unlike legal and regulated prostitution, murder provides nothing to people nor society (And actually does violate people's human rights, having sex with consent however, does not). That was easy.
B. Banning it will just make them more likely to be active, so they will be committing crimes.
C. Prostitution counts as a job, and maybe you should tell Putin that sometime...

A) Hitmen would certainly disagree. Also, human rights are really no different than just another moralistic system, so that argument isn't really any stronger than mine for banning prostitution.
B) "People do illegal things more often", basically; Okay, so banning murder therefore means more murder, so we should legalize murder.
C) You're the one who said you love corruption earlier in the thread, so I don't see why you think I'm more of a Putin-lover than you.

A. Is killing people bad: Yes. Should it be done: No. Doesn't really seem subjective to me.
B. Yet again, murder does this little thing called infringing on people's rights, sex doesn't.
C. Never said I loved corruption, so mind finding a source for this claim?

[Randsbeik]

Why is it our job to protect people from themselves?

Why is it our job to protect people from others?

Self-inflicted harm is voluntary on part of the inflicter.

External harm isn't.

And it isn't your "job" unless you're being payed.

[Ifreann]

So, why should we allow people to harm themselves?

I mean, you could go down the path that personal freedoms are not important and the state has a duty to protect people from their own irresponsibility by taking over their decision making for them, but the logical conclusion thereof is absurd and the cure likely worse than the disease.

There would be no prostitution, but there would be forced procreation with your government assigned mate.

[The Grene Knyght]

Why is it our job to protect people from themselves?

Why is it our job to protect people from others?

Self interest. Its in our own interest to mutually agree that harming others is bad.