/liberty/ - Liberty

this is all because prostitution is illegal

legalize prostitution so that you can regulate it

You forgot to mention the part where a large number of these "sex slaves" are doing it voluntarily because it pays well and they're living in abject poverty. It's one thing if these people were being kidnapped and tied up and repeatedly raped, it's quite another when someone goes up to a girl with no money and no prospects and says "hey, if you're interested, I know a guy that will pay you $3000 to pee on him," and if she turns him down, he just walks 10 yards down the street and makes the same proposition to the next starving waif.

If you really cared about these people, you wouldn't ban them from doing the thing that puts food on their table, you'd fix the fucked up conditions that drive them to sex work in the first place. Even then you couldn't eliminate it completely, because frankly, there will always be people willing to pay money for sex, and there will always be people willing to make a quick buck and get laid.

>>77478

Legalize prostitution on principle and not out of need to regulate. Reminds me of all the weed supporters thinking they were cool libertarians after voting for legalization despite all the tax and regulations that came with. Legalizing prostitution without regulation in my opinion would create more entrepreneurial Madams instead of abusive pimps.

>>77500

>legalize without regulating

I would be curious to see how this works. Sounds interesting. Any real life examples?

>legalize without regulating

legalization is regulation

>>77659

Can you define both terms?

>>77647

What's so mystical about it? Some people have money and want a wet hole to stick their bits into, some people have holes and want money. Those people have a mutual exchange of wants and then everyone goes home happy. It's a system that works pretty damn well as long as the government doesn't fuck it up.

Liara Roux, for example, is a fairly high profile "escort" that doesn't even bother to pretend that sex isn't part of the deal. She doesn't have a pimp, she has a secretary. How long do you think that would last if she and her clients weren't so rich and well connected? It's regulation itself that makes sex work abusive, not anything that innately separates it from any other form of labor.

>>77723

I meant legalizing stuff without regulating it in general not just for sex work. But yeah that is a good explanation.

>>77677

yes

>>77874

Anything not criminal but not explicitly legalized is unregulated. I have a maid. There are no laws relating to maids except maybe labor laws, but it's under the table so those dont apply. I give her $200, she comes to my house and cleans it spotless. That's it. She's not part of an agency, or a union, there are no maid pimps. She performs this service for dozens of people a month and none of them ever try to murder her. That's it. It's just an agreement between two parties.

>>77435

As a voluntarist, I see nothing wrong with sex trafficking so long as consent can be found in some stipulation of an EULA for a freeware PC utility.

>I have been working with a few non-profit groups now to help stop human trafficking and am shocked at what I have learned.

…namely that your employer sucks money off a giant fucking hoax?

>he thinks he can spread awareness on a board of <100 people, over half of which are pedophiles who support human trafficking