You used a hypothetical situation and used “if”, a conditional word. You’re saying that it’s ok to send them Sats “if” they are forced into this situation.
Would you support children who are traumatized and forced into child sex trafficking? Why or why not?
I’m also a libertarian. There are a lot of issues I believe the state ought not to be involved in.
Again, this comes down to a moral issue. Again I ask, by what standard can you make these claims?
It is ok to send sats to anyone. That's the idea. If person is not traumatized, it is also ok to support them by sats. I don't think I understand your point
Off topic. Let’s get back to your moral case for prostitution
Well, prostitution is an arrangement between consenting individuals. No aggression against anyone was committed. Both parties are better off, because otherwise they would not engage in such action. Unless you have some case against it, it is considered a good thing, win-win.
You mean to tell me that there is no aggression in prostitution? What evidence do you have to prove your case to stand that it’s a win-win?
Who is the aggressor then?
It is a win-win, because both parties participated having an opportunity not to participate and no threat of violence or any threat what so ever was involved.
Here’s just a quick article I found with some research backed evidence. You can’t not read this and see there are significant risks (aggression) involved with mainly women who are out prostituting themselves or being owned by a “pimp” or “John”.
https://www.crimescenecleanup.com/prostitution-death-statistics/
If you can find me any positive based (research backed) evidence for your case that prostitution is good, I’d love to read it.
Pimps do aggress agains prostitutes. But it is an off-topic! We consider a case against production, not pimps.
As a side note, let's consider the case, when you go to a prostitute, who is not independent, but works under a pimp. I'll prove you that it is not a bigger thing than going for groceries. Her business is under a racket by the pimp. But any good business can be racketed by criminals. For example, the state is the biggest racketeer. It forces the businesman to accept the fiat currency in exchange of goods and services. Do you commit a bad thing, when you go to grocery store and pay with fiat currency? It is a forced, racketeered enterprise, he would not accept a piece of paper in exchange for goods, if not his pimp (the state).
This is not logical brother! Using a grocery store to compare a prostitution are not the same thing! Here’s your victimless crime theory debunked 👇🏻
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/opinions/2013/3/19/prostitution-a-victimless-crime
I argue from the first principles. If there is a good argument in the paper, please bring it here. It is not a victimless crime, it is not a crime at all! Give me a distinction between prostitution and any other work. Otherwise I can find many articles about bad labor conditions of somebody and declare all paid labor immoral.
I think you meant liberal when you said libertarian. Your argument for bad labor conditions is not the same immoral labor. There’s many good arguments in the articles. Too many to list.
Having sex for money doesn't violate the NAP so how is he not speaking in alignment with libertarian principles?
First principles based by what standard?
By homesteading principle - one has private property rights to anything they homestead. The body is the first thing a person homesteads. Then comes products of their own labor. The notion of private property includes the right to exchange your property with others. Of rent it to others on some terms. And here we already have a moral case for prostitution - one exchanges some goods for "renting" somebody else's body for sex. That is prostitution based on the first principles!
Plus, the ridiculous fact that if you pay someone for sex and film it, suddenly it's legal!
Almost as if puritanical laws make no sense or something 🤣
