5 ms·

What is sad is that there are a lot of real-size social experiments in various countries that have a variety of legislation and situation and a ton of literatur

by Iv 7y ago

What is sad is that there are a lot of real-size social experiments in various countries that have a variety of legislation and situation and a ton of literature to guide policy there. I have (like everybody) some opinions on how sex should work and what limits paid sex should have. I'll just say that: My preferences are totally irrelevant and should be dismissed if they have any chance of increasing human trafficking. These policies should have a single, fact-based, evidence-based goal: fight sex slavery and human trafficking. If it leads to a system I don't like, so be it. Fighting slavery is the #1 goal there.

boomboomsubban 7y ago
Then put everyone under 24 hour surveillance. That is the only logical choice given your goals. If you allow someone any amount of freedom, you can't be sure they won't used it this try and enslave someone else.
- danShumway 7y ago
  Balancing between freedom and safety is one thing. But if we have a bill that chips away from freedoms guaranteed by section 230, and it also doesn't make the people it's trying to help any safer... can't we agree that bill in specific should get thrown out? This isn't a problem of balancing freedom with protecting sex workers. This bill makes the Internet less free and makes sex workers less safe. Everyone loses with this bill, except a few Congresspeople who get to look good for cameras.
- geofft 7y ago
  That's clearly not what the comment you're replying to was saying. It was saying, I might have my moral opinions in a vacuum about whether prostitution is good or bad, but the moral principle of trafficking being bad overrides that, and we should follow what the evidence says. If the evidence says that decriminalizing sex work reduces trafficking, then a moral opinion against sex work doesn't outweigh the evidence. It was clearly not about higher moral principle of fundamental liberty.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    The "higher moral principle of fundamental liberty" is choosing the more free/less restrictive path even when that leads to worse outcomes. That's literally the idea behind the entire liberty vs freedom discussion - that (for instance) even if giving the government access to all our communications would make us safer, it's still not what should be done.
- scotty79 7y ago
  That's a silly argument. You could equally rightly say that we should just execute everybody because if they are breathing they can enslave someone. Clearly parent didn't mean trivial solutions are the "best" because they achieve the goal 100% but require destroying everything else.
hnuser77 7y ago
It seems reasonable to claim (and seems to be backed up by authorities on the issue) that most genuine sex trafficking originates from two sources: 1) visa fraud and/or human smuggling across the border and 2) domestically, broken homes. Trying to fix either of these root causes requires stepping on some political landmines.
bluecalm 7y ago
Human trafficking is not the only consideration. There is health and safety of sex workers, issue of tying public resources to police voluntary victimless acts as well as just freedom to make choices about your life. Prohibition makes all the above significantly worse. You would need a lot of compelling evidence it helps reducing trafficking to even get into a reasonable debate on it. I highly doubt it was ever about trafficking to begin with. It's about various groups (on both right and left) wanting to tell people what they are and are not allowed to do with their bodies.
- Iv 7y ago
  > It's about various groups (on both right and left) wanting to tell people what they are and are not allowed to do with their bodies. Exactly. That's what makes me bitter about these questions. Legalization of prositution is actually an interesting question as you can find left-wing and right-wing arguments for and against. It has a potential of being very divisive or unifying across party lines. And about health issues, I agree it is an important one, but sorry, if the workers we are talking about are free of their career choices, I think it comes after the question of people who do not have a choice.
  - bluecalm 7y ago
    There are many other things you can do to reduce trafficking though. You can be more aggressive setting up honey pots and going after traffickers or make borders more secure or invest in social services to help people in rough life situation to name a few. I don't want the kind of thinking that sacrifices freedom and moral principles so the bad guys have less avenues to profit to dominate our world. For all we know if they can't do trafficking they will switch to other criminal activity and hurt people there. They are the problem not the people who exchange sex for money so let's go after the actual problem.
pjc50 7y ago
"Human trafficking" is a problem created by immigration law. Like the 39 dead Vietnamese in the UK recently, the "system" would prefer that they are dead than allow them to work in the UK. The same applies to sex trafficking. All the system offers people is deportation at best and indefinite detention with no legal rights at worst. Or death. We should not pretend that we are acting in the best interest of the trafficked.
naasking 7y ago
> My preferences are totally irrelevant and should be dismissed if they have any chance of increasing human trafficking. "Any chance" is an absurd standard. Consider what a country would look like if you said that personal preferences should be dismissed if it had any chance of increasing murder. Get comfortable eating your steak with your teeth since the presence of knives has a non-zero chance of increasing murder!

by Iv 7y ago

boomboomsubban 7y ago

Then put everyone under 24 hour surveillance. That is the only logical choice given your goals. If you allow someone any amount of freedom, you can't be sure they won't used it this try and enslave someone else.

danShumway 7y ago
Balancing between freedom and safety is one thing. But if we have a bill that chips away from freedoms guaranteed by section 230, and it also doesn't make the people it's trying to help any safer... can't we agree that bill in specific should get thrown out? This isn't a problem of balancing freedom with protecting sex workers. This bill makes the Internet less free and makes sex workers less safe. Everyone loses with this bill, except a few Congresspeople who get to look good for cameras.
geofft 7y ago
That's clearly not what the comment you're replying to was saying. It was saying, I might have my moral opinions in a vacuum about whether prostitution is good or bad, but the moral principle of trafficking being bad overrides that, and we should follow what the evidence says. If the evidence says that decriminalizing sex work reduces trafficking, then a moral opinion against sex work doesn't outweigh the evidence. It was clearly not about higher moral principle of fundamental liberty.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  The "higher moral principle of fundamental liberty" is choosing the more free/less restrictive path even when that leads to worse outcomes. That's literally the idea behind the entire liberty vs freedom discussion - that (for instance) even if giving the government access to all our communications would make us safer, it's still not what should be done.
scotty79 7y ago
That's a silly argument. You could equally rightly say that we should just execute everybody because if they are breathing they can enslave someone. Clearly parent didn't mean trivial solutions are the "best" because they achieve the goal 100% but require destroying everything else.

hnuser77 7y ago

It seems reasonable to claim (and seems to be backed up by authorities on the issue) that most genuine sex trafficking originates from two sources: 1) visa fraud and/or human smuggling across the border and 2) domestically, broken homes. Trying to fix either of these root causes requires stepping on some political landmines.

bluecalm 7y ago

Human trafficking is not the only consideration. There is health and safety of sex workers, issue of tying public resources to police voluntary victimless acts as well as just freedom to make choices about your life. Prohibition makes all the above significantly worse. You would need a lot of compelling evidence it helps reducing trafficking to even get into a reasonable debate on it. I highly doubt it was ever about trafficking to begin with. It's about various groups (on both right and left) wanting to tell people what they are and are not allowed to do with their bodies.

Iv 7y ago
> It's about various groups (on both right and left) wanting to tell people what they are and are not allowed to do with their bodies. Exactly. That's what makes me bitter about these questions. Legalization of prositution is actually an interesting question as you can find left-wing and right-wing arguments for and against. It has a potential of being very divisive or unifying across party lines. And about health issues, I agree it is an important one, but sorry, if the workers we are talking about are free of their career choices, I think it comes after the question of people who do not have a choice.
- bluecalm 7y ago
  There are many other things you can do to reduce trafficking though. You can be more aggressive setting up honey pots and going after traffickers or make borders more secure or invest in social services to help people in rough life situation to name a few. I don't want the kind of thinking that sacrifices freedom and moral principles so the bad guys have less avenues to profit to dominate our world. For all we know if they can't do trafficking they will switch to other criminal activity and hurt people there. They are the problem not the people who exchange sex for money so let's go after the actual problem.

pjc50 7y ago

"Human trafficking" is a problem created by immigration law. Like the 39 dead Vietnamese in the UK recently, the "system" would prefer that they are dead than allow them to work in the UK. The same applies to sex trafficking. All the system offers people is deportation at best and indefinite detention with no legal rights at worst. Or death. We should not pretend that we are acting in the best interest of the trafficked.

naasking 7y ago

> My preferences are totally irrelevant and should be dismissed if they have any chance of increasing human trafficking. "Any chance" is an absurd standard. Consider what a country would look like if you said that personal preferences should be dismissed if it had any chance of increasing murder. Get comfortable eating your steak with your teeth since the presence of knives has a non-zero chance of increasing murder!