one cannot assume in the absence of that formal structure of protection of workers' rights, that a non-abusive relationship exists
In the same way one cannot assume that the relationship is abusive. It is important to accept that there are things that one doesn't know, and in this case we don't. I'm sure that you, like me have looked for stats, but unfortunately they don't exist, and so we have x pros who are in abusive relationships or worse and we have y pros who are not. To assume either way is just that an assumption and should be recognised as such. From now on this assumption will be called assumption A.
Please cite for me even one example of a pimp who allows his workers to work together to ask for better pay and conditions, or who formalizes their relationship into a contract.
Well any example I state could be shot down because like you say:
workers may out of fear maintain that everything is fine?
In other words I cannot win in this, (in the same way as only the true messiah would deny his divinity), any example I might give you, you could assume that they are lying, and even if they begged you that they weren't, you would merely be saddened at how 'in fear' they are.
However, since the workplace abuses would also wither away under the Swedish model...
The Swedish model is often put forward and again it would seem impossible to disprove. I don't think that the abuses would wither away under this system because most of the reports I have read about this system suggest that the pros are not very happy with it, and that the promised support structures such as adult education and the like do not persist.
Also from a historical point of view it would seem a bit of a strange assumption, that the oldest profession might be 'solved'. Where there is demand and supply there will always be a market no matter how far it might be driven out of sight, and driving such an industry underground is hardly going to improve the conditions of the workers is it?
Therefore the legalisation of the industry, which already occurs in parts of America, New Zealand and Holland with great success, and nary a peep, would seem to suggest that it WOULD wither away the abuses through empowering the workers, which should be the default position.
At present, what we have is an illegal industry, and everywhere I have seen illegal industries I have found exploited workers. As soon as you have people working illegally, they place themselves in a situation where people will naturally exploit their vulnerability and lack of rights, and the onus shifts to you to prove that exploitation is not really occurring.
Wait a minute, this is as good a reason for legalisation as exists, and yet you state on the end that you are waiting for me to prove that exploitation is NOT occurring until you accept that legalisation can occur. eek!
I could cite you many, many examples of sex workers stating that they are victims.
Really? I would suggest that you would have cited them already, but actually the stats are very sketchy, and even though there are no doubt x pros who are being abused, there are also no doubt many brothels around the world, in which there are y pros who are taking advantage of their looks and sexuality to get a high paying job for relatively little effort.
You seem to assume that there are vastly more x and I assume that there are vastly more y. But in both cases this is assumption A again and should be recognised as such.
However, my tendency towards rights first, moralism second, would mean that ALL these women would have the rights which we take for granted before we ake the time needed to prove either way on assumpion A. So they could set up a business with panic buttons, so that a bouncer could come when needed etc, meanwhile your position seems to want to wait while women are being exploited. Why do you wish to wait? Why should these women wait for their rights? You ask me to prove that the workers are not exploited. I deny that I think this because I know full well that they are, and I would never make such a simplistic manichean statement. My position is that this exploitation is all the more reason to give them the rights they need first and foremost BEFORE we address assumption A.
I might add that you refer to your "well-grounded suspicions of exploitation", but this evidence you have in mind is no doubt gleaned from the media which reports the bad news, the good news ie that people are happy would never be reported, and so you are getting only one side of the story.People don't get murdered every day, people are happy in their jobs every day and these are not reported because the headline "People Happy" is not as likely to sell newspapers as "Prostitute killed". Why would a guy happily going to a happy prostitute be reported?
The question is whether (speaking in terms of utility theory) my doing what I like imposes negative externalities on another person. If it does, then it becomes a legitimate area that a democratic government can regulate.
Well I would hope that the other person who you mention is asked to judge if they are having negative externalities imposed on them, and is not over-ruled.
So again you would need to make assumption A to make this stick.
This returns to the point you failed to answer originally, which was the necessity of having a victim. As I have mentioned, being gay was considered a crime not so long ago, and the problem then was that both adults were quite happy, and so it was difficult to bring a case. Also similar is that the authorities tried to have them committed. Do you see why this is so important? If you don't take people's word for it, then you introduce the capacity for tyranny on a much broader scale.
Many johns are married or in steady relationships, and you cannot reasonably presuppose no harm to the people they're in relationships with from their using prostitutes.
You have made his point before on other threads, and I would again suggest that this is a matter for the couple themselves NOT the government. You are basically saying that the women at home would be suffering if the man went to a prostitute, and as I have said before I would suggest that a legalised brothel which is checked for deseases on a regular basis would mean that the wife at home would not get AIDS or any other STD. I would say therefore that if your priority is the wife, then you should go down this road, not try and impose a government prohibition, which any bloke could get round if they wanted to, leading to the wife getting the STD. What's more important to you? At the moment the pro cannot dictate the usage of condoms, surely it would be better if she could?
Third, many people living in red light districts do not like having prostitutes working the neighborhood.
And of course they can demonstrate against what they wish, but again this would be solved by legalisation which would mean that street prostitution, which is by far the most dangerous would become much less likely if the punter could just go to a brothel.
Do you believe in people? Do you trust them?
Yes. It is because I believe in these women that I would rather help them find ways out of being abused and exploited.
Then why is it that your way just ignores the problem and refuses to listen to the workers' request for rights? Your words seem to suggest that you want to help them while supporting methods which don't.
In what circumstances would you mind your own business?
When I perceive no harm to others from my doing so.
And if the people you perceive, consider that you should mind your own business? Of course this is assumption A again, in that my instinct is that everything is OK unless people ask for help. You know that people cannot always ask for help, or are even in a position where they are being forced not to ask, but again by sticking your nose in you are in danger of falling for assumption A yourself, and so the default position has to be the recognition of this and thus legalisation and rights for all.
You see I recognise assumption A as a flaw and so I want to make sure that the highest proportion of people are protected, and this means listening to the workers, and they are very clear in their opposition to the Swedish Model and in the need for rights.
Do you feel that all workers should have equal rights?
Extra cheerily Nope.
I understand the subsequent point you make, but we are actually talking about the right to set up a business and to go about one's business without being oppressed, and ALL workers can report these oppressions to the police, or hire security. I do think you recognise this and that we agree because you state:
What every worker should have is equal civil rights - among which I would number the right to the integrity of their bodily person while on the job.
However you seem unable to state the first part without the second. What does that mean the integrity of their bodily person? Do you feel that the individual has the right to judge when their integrity is intact? Do I detect a certain amount of wriggling? You are keen to give them equal civil rights but are reluctant to trust them completely.
I would say that everyone has the right to choose what they put into their own bodies. The government might not like my decision to take drugs or commit adultery, but I would be very unhappy at a world where these actions resulted in convictions.
What a delluded...
Never mind, eh...
