4 ms·
The crux of the prohibition argument is this: > Human trafficking, coercion and violence is a side-effect of a desire creating a market. But this will never b
by jakelazaroff 9y ago
The crux of the prohibition argument is this:
> Human trafficking, coercion and violence is a side-effect of a desire creating a market.
But this will never be a legitimate market. We're talking about money being exchanged for sex with children. That is inherently violent, and has absolutely nothing to do with whatever market may or may not exist.
The argument against prohibition is that making the thing illegal is more harmful than regulating it. That's not the case with murder, and it's not the case with human trafficking — any occurrence of it is harmful, regardless of how you regulate it.
- anonbanker 9y agoThis is the most clever "No True Scottsman" fallacy I've ever seen.
- jakelazaroff 9y agoAre you talking about my excluding murder and human trafficking from the definition of "prohibition"? That's not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. They're illegal, but it's disingenuous to say laws against them are tantamount to legal prohibition a la alcohol. Look at the Wikipedia article got prohibitionism [1]: literally every example is of a victimless crime, which murder and human trafficking clearly are not.