Red Mosquito

keeping sex work illegal is not an anti-capitalist power move and never was

BurtReynolds wrote:No way! But then again I don't have to pretend that sucking dick for money is respectable, dignified work either, or that the industrialization of sex won't have massive consequences that none of us really know about.

because you do it for free?

I'd like to hear how sex is unique amongst human activities, without invoking procreation

.

checkmate, Lefties!

Ms Harmless wrote: yeah this

I'm not pretending that legalising sex work will upend, dismantle and change the system as we know it; whoever thought that was putting words in my mouth

all I'm saying is that as long as the market is how it is, let sex workers participate and benefit from the legal protections enjoyed by the rest of the market

changing the system is a different, more meta discussion

I believe you've stated earlier opposition to capitalism, so then doesn't the bolded imply that your support for the legalization of sex work is conditional, not absolute? I fully agree with you when you say "let sex workers participate and benefit from the legal protections enjoyed by the rest of the market" but I also happen to think that markets are more often than not the best way of organizing activities, so my support for that position is absolute, not dependent on a the existence of a system I disagree with. Of course, I don't think you mean to offer only conditional support for sex workers, so I guess my question goes well beyond the scope of this topic, but how would you prefer for people's skills and labor to be allocated if not by markets, and what would that mean for sex work(ers)?

Ms Harmless wrote:
resources aren't scarce, though; they're distributed unfairly

Really, resources aren't scarce?

I was hoping that "Billionaires, monarchies and corporations are hoarding all the wealth so resources are scarce for the poor, and the "third world" is actually the plundered and exploited world" was a talking point we'd all be familiar with, even if you don't agree

the alternative is "pull up your bootstraps, lazy fuckers!"

Ms Harmless wrote:I was hoping that "Billionaires, monarchies and corporations are hoarding all the wealth so resources are scarce for the poor, and the "third world" is actually the plundered and exploited world" was a talking point we'd all be familiar with, even if you don't agree

the landlords thing is part of this context, the sex work conversation is not

Bi_3 wrote:

4/5 wrote:Such a weird discussion.

The people who don't like markets: it's just another market transaction!

The person in the discussion who most supports markets: this specific trade can't be allowed!

The 13th Amendment agrees with this.

I think you've already shown that you believe prostitution to be a person selling themselves or a piece of themselves as opposed to using their body to perform a service. In which case your comparison makes sense. Of course, if I think they're merely performing a service and if I allow for the possibility for that person to choose to consensually engage in that trade without being under duress then the comparison isn't relevant.

The more interesting part to me of what you've said is that you're using the argument that a lot of market opponents use in response to a person who advocates mutually beneficial trade and says that trade is good as long as each person is free to say "no" and walk away from the trade. Their response is usually that the person isn't truly free to say "no" because if they do, they can't feed/clothe/house, etc. themselves, therefore they aren't free to give consent to the trade.

Ms Harmless wrote:I was hoping that "Billionaires, monarchies and corporations are hoarding all the wealth so resources are scarce for the poor, and the "third world" is actually the plundered and exploited world" was a talking point we'd all be familiar with, even if you don't agree

That's your answer to "really, resources aren't scarce?" Excuse me if I don't find that remotely compelling.

Ms Harmless wrote:the alternative is "pull up your bootstraps, lazy fuckers!"

Well, that's not true .

"resources are scarce" omitts the fact that they aren't scarce for everybody; I would say resources are hoarded, making them scarce for the poorest; the world is rich in resources, but not everyone gets to enjoy them

I don't pretend that the resources don't exist somewhere

.

4/5 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote: yeah this

I'm not pretending that legalising sex work will upend, dismantle and change the system as we know it; whoever thought that was putting words in my mouth

all I'm saying is that as long as the market is how it is, let sex workers participate and benefit from the legal protections enjoyed by the rest of the market

changing the system is a different, more meta discussion

I believe you've stated earlier opposition to capitalism, so then doesn't the bolded imply that your support for the legalization of sex work is conditional, not absolute? I fully agree with you when you say "let sex workers participate and benefit from the legal protections enjoyed by the rest of the market" but I also happen to think that markets are more often than not the best way of organizing activities, so my support for that position is absolute, not dependent on a the existence of a system I disagree with. Of course, I don't think you mean to offer only conditional support for sex workers, so I guess my question goes well beyond the scope of this topic, but how would you prefer for people's skills and labor to be allocated if not by markets, and what would that mean for sex work(ers)?

it would mean the same as for anyone practicing a craft or trade, which isn't the same thing as being subject to a capitalist profit system where money rises to the top

my suggestion that sex workers should enjoy the benefits we have at the moment is about fairness, since the kind of overarching system I want to see happens in steps; legalisation is step one

an example of a capitalist abuse of sex work as a trade would be something like Hugh Heffner and what has happened in the Playboy Mansion; arguments that those are wrong can and do co-exist with calls for legalisation

BurtReynolds wrote:but resources don't exist somewhere.

that's what the right tells themselves so they can sleep at night

"there is no magic money tree!"

.

it's over there *points*

So resources are not scarce and there is a magic money tree.