4 ms·

Is there free choice in modern democratic societies? Not at all, the state decide for you on abortion, marriage, car safety, gun usage and even what medications

by 2rsf 5y ago

Is there free choice in modern democratic societies? Not at all, the state decide for you on abortion, marriage, car safety, gun usage and even what medications can get used (pseudoephedrine is not sold in Sweden!) so why not prostitution if (and only if) data shows that it's beneficial? As to what percentage the answer like everything else is whatever the winning party in the elections think

danbruc 5y ago
No society is perfect, but existing failures should not be the standard or justification for future changes. And there will probably never be universal consensus on everything because many policies are, at least to an certain extend, a matter of personal preference. Whether you want the state to be involved in something is often a matter of personal preference, do you prefer universal healthcare, do you prefer private health insurance, or are you willing to take the risk and have no health insurance at all? At least at first glance there is no single right answer to such questions and letting everyone decide is also not generally an option, for example if all healthy people get cheap private health insurance then universal healthcare does not work. And your preferences are often a consequence of who you are, if you are healthy and wealthy and have a good job, then it is easy to prefer a state that does not want your money and lets you decide freely. If you are poor or have health issues or a high risk of being unemployed then you might reasonable prefer a stronger state. What you should be actually doing to decide your position in such matters is using the veil of ignorance, what policies would you want implemented if you were not yet born and you did not know whether you will be born into the richest family, or the poorest, or what sex or skin color you will have. So even in questions of personal preferences one can at least to some degree be more objective by considering different points of view. So if the state decides for you that does not necessarily mean that the state acts arbitrarily, it might just optimize for different goals. And those might be arbitrary preferences by the people in power but there might also be sound reasoning behind and the resulting policy just does not align with your personal preferences. And sure, if there is some sound reasoning behind making prostitution illegal, then one should do this. But if the reasoning behind making prostitution illegal is to limit human trafficking then I do not see how you can have the resources to harass all the prostitutes but can not target human trafficking specifically and keep prostitution legal. But this might admittedly just be ignorance on my side.

by 2rsf 5y ago

danbruc 5y ago

No society is perfect, but existing failures should not be the standard or justification for future changes. And there will probably never be universal consensus on everything because many policies are, at least to an certain extend, a matter of personal preference. Whether you want the state to be involved in something is often a matter of personal preference, do you prefer universal healthcare, do you prefer private health insurance, or are you willing to take the risk and have no health insurance at all? At least at first glance there is no single right answer to such questions and letting everyone decide is also not generally an option, for example if all healthy people get cheap private health insurance then universal healthcare does not work. And your preferences are often a consequence of who you are, if you are healthy and wealthy and have a good job, then it is easy to prefer a state that does not want your money and lets you decide freely. If you are poor or have health issues or a high risk of being unemployed then you might reasonable prefer a stronger state. What you should be actually doing to decide your position in such matters is using the veil of ignorance, what policies would you want implemented if you were not yet born and you did not know whether you will be born into the richest family, or the poorest, or what sex or skin color you will have. So even in questions of personal preferences one can at least to some degree be more objective by considering different points of view. So if the state decides for you that does not necessarily mean that the state acts arbitrarily, it might just optimize for different goals. And those might be arbitrary preferences by the people in power but there might also be sound reasoning behind and the resulting policy just does not align with your personal preferences. And sure, if there is some sound reasoning behind making prostitution illegal, then one should do this. But if the reasoning behind making prostitution illegal is to limit human trafficking then I do not see how you can have the resources to harass all the prostitutes but can not target human trafficking specifically and keep prostitution legal. But this might admittedly just be ignorance on my side.