so, i'm back to what i was doing again, and i'm going to get this figured out one way or another in the next few days.
Monday, July 8, 2019
this article is illuminating in it's citations - and it's clarity in debunking many of the points used on both sides of the debate.
this could be an empirical question, but we'll likely never have any actual useful data until we try the experiment in real time, and, even so you're looking at shifting conditions. being an empiricist also means understanding the limits of the tactic.
http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3839
this could be an empirical question, but we'll likely never have any actual useful data until we try the experiment in real time, and, even so you're looking at shifting conditions. being an empiricist also means understanding the limits of the tactic.
http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article3839
at
07:35
if you're really ra-ra about prostitution, and absolutely convinced that it's just a job and should be completely legalized, you're really expressing an ancap position and should be looking into a libertarian kind of party.
and, it's actually kind of obvious, even if the lines are pretty blurred. what you're arguing for is more capitalism, not less of it.
and, it's actually kind of obvious, even if the lines are pretty blurred. what you're arguing for is more capitalism, not less of it.
at
06:13
something frequently brought up in these articles is the idea that pushing sex work underground makes it less safe, but nobody ever presents any kind of reference to any kind of study when they say it. it's just assumed. i'm willing to challenge the truth of this claim, and even suggest that it's a bit reactionary, in the sense that it's ignoring basic market forces - something that marx or proudhon would not have done.
i would suppose that the argument, never really stated, would be that women are less safe if they're less policed. why are socialists parroting this claim?
i might rather suggest that when you decrease the supply of something while maintaining the demand relatively stable, the price goes up, and, as such, the bargaining power of the seller increases. a purely market-based argument would be that driving prostitution underground would make people more safe, and not less safe, as it would give the seller more control over the buyer. the counter argument would be that the buyer will react with violence, but i'm not sure this is well thought through; if they're going to react with violence when the price is x amount, why wouldn't they when the price is however much less? why is violence dependent on cost? and, if you're rather arguing that it's the lack of visibility that leads to violence, i might rather make the opposite point - driving the transaction underground makes it harder for violent people to find the sellers, and easier for a community to snub people it wants to avoid. a small industry advertised via word of mouth is no doubt far safer than one advertised to anybody and everybody in magazines or on the internet.
this issue aside, this is another prominent socialist journal explaining a kind of basic socialist position on prostitution: if there would be any prostitution in a truly free society at all, it would be very minimal, and the focus should consequently be on providing women with better choices, rather than normalizing what is probably the shittiest one.
http://isj.org.uk/the-sex-work-debate/
i would suppose that the argument, never really stated, would be that women are less safe if they're less policed. why are socialists parroting this claim?
i might rather suggest that when you decrease the supply of something while maintaining the demand relatively stable, the price goes up, and, as such, the bargaining power of the seller increases. a purely market-based argument would be that driving prostitution underground would make people more safe, and not less safe, as it would give the seller more control over the buyer. the counter argument would be that the buyer will react with violence, but i'm not sure this is well thought through; if they're going to react with violence when the price is x amount, why wouldn't they when the price is however much less? why is violence dependent on cost? and, if you're rather arguing that it's the lack of visibility that leads to violence, i might rather make the opposite point - driving the transaction underground makes it harder for violent people to find the sellers, and easier for a community to snub people it wants to avoid. a small industry advertised via word of mouth is no doubt far safer than one advertised to anybody and everybody in magazines or on the internet.
this issue aside, this is another prominent socialist journal explaining a kind of basic socialist position on prostitution: if there would be any prostitution in a truly free society at all, it would be very minimal, and the focus should consequently be on providing women with better choices, rather than normalizing what is probably the shittiest one.
http://isj.org.uk/the-sex-work-debate/
at
05:44
so, what do i want to hear from socialists - not ancaps and not "progressives" - regarding the issue of prostitution?
- decriminalization, but not legalization. don't send people to jail for this, whether it's consensual or not, but try and keep it underground, to keep the economic power in the hand of the sellers. this would functionally legalize independent sellers, while maintaining a strong and vigorously enforced prohibition on things like brothels, escort agencies and other corporate-driven prostitution models. that is, keep the means of production in the hands of the workers, themselves.
- this is important enough to state again: any attempt to corporatize prostitution should be aggressively opposed by anybody calling themselves a socialist.
- more funding for women in at-risk populations. this would include things like increasing access to healthcare, increasing access to education, increasing access to addictions services, more community housing and also increases in social assistance, like welfare.
- more of a focus on teaching men to treat women like people rather than products, and not to see sex as a meaningless high to buy on a market.
- i would also support aggressive action against sex trafficking, which includes aggressive action against pimps, escort agencies and other services that reduce prostitutes to salaried employees. if you're asking me if there's a difference between sex work and sex trafficking, i'd clearly state that the lines are pretty blurry.
once all of this is in place, if women still want to sell, that's up to them.
- decriminalization, but not legalization. don't send people to jail for this, whether it's consensual or not, but try and keep it underground, to keep the economic power in the hand of the sellers. this would functionally legalize independent sellers, while maintaining a strong and vigorously enforced prohibition on things like brothels, escort agencies and other corporate-driven prostitution models. that is, keep the means of production in the hands of the workers, themselves.
- this is important enough to state again: any attempt to corporatize prostitution should be aggressively opposed by anybody calling themselves a socialist.
- more funding for women in at-risk populations. this would include things like increasing access to healthcare, increasing access to education, increasing access to addictions services, more community housing and also increases in social assistance, like welfare.
- more of a focus on teaching men to treat women like people rather than products, and not to see sex as a meaningless high to buy on a market.
- i would also support aggressive action against sex trafficking, which includes aggressive action against pimps, escort agencies and other services that reduce prostitutes to salaried employees. if you're asking me if there's a difference between sex work and sex trafficking, i'd clearly state that the lines are pretty blurry.
once all of this is in place, if women still want to sell, that's up to them.
at
03:47
a lot of the sympathy in the general population around prostitutes' rights is based on the idea that it's an act of desperation - that you shouldn't punish people for trying to survive in such a harshly competitive, capitalist reality. you gotta do what you gotta do; blame the system, not the girl. ok.
but, this argument is taking a different position - it's not arguing that they can't find another job, or that the landlord isn't going to wait for the interview process to complete or that their kids' diabetes can't wait until the end of the month for the insulin shot. what they're saying is "i don't want to do something else. i want to do this. you're infringing on my rights to do what i want.".
well, that's a different perspective; this is not an argument from desperation, it's an argument from entitlement, and it's consequently very different in scope.
i don't think that there should be criminal charges attached to consensual prostitution; it's a reality i can't fathom, but we shouldn't criminalize consensual sex, if it's really consensual. but, i'm actually closer to bernie's position on this than i am to the pro-market, right-libertarian position that's recently creeped into the "progressive" "left": it's far more important to combat trafficking than it is to facilitate sex work as a profession, and if people that choose prostitution out of their own free will get caught up in laws designed to combat trafficking then that's not something i'm going to concern myself too much about.
if these people have specific amendments that can make their lives easier without reversing the general thrust of the bill, they should bring them forward. but, they shouldn't think they're the most important thing, here - because they're not.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjpqvz/fosta-sesta-sex-work-and-trafficking
but, this argument is taking a different position - it's not arguing that they can't find another job, or that the landlord isn't going to wait for the interview process to complete or that their kids' diabetes can't wait until the end of the month for the insulin shot. what they're saying is "i don't want to do something else. i want to do this. you're infringing on my rights to do what i want.".
well, that's a different perspective; this is not an argument from desperation, it's an argument from entitlement, and it's consequently very different in scope.
i don't think that there should be criminal charges attached to consensual prostitution; it's a reality i can't fathom, but we shouldn't criminalize consensual sex, if it's really consensual. but, i'm actually closer to bernie's position on this than i am to the pro-market, right-libertarian position that's recently creeped into the "progressive" "left": it's far more important to combat trafficking than it is to facilitate sex work as a profession, and if people that choose prostitution out of their own free will get caught up in laws designed to combat trafficking then that's not something i'm going to concern myself too much about.
if these people have specific amendments that can make their lives easier without reversing the general thrust of the bill, they should bring them forward. but, they shouldn't think they're the most important thing, here - because they're not.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjpqvz/fosta-sesta-sex-work-and-trafficking
at
02:59
if your primary focus on the border right now is in increasing funding for the private prison system, what are you actually supporting? and, if your primary concern is reducing the amount of spending, what are you actually doing?
don't misunderstand me - i think a good faith application of the court order to advance the best interests of the child means that you have to feed them, as you're quickly moving to place them into foster care. the whole point of the argument i'm making is to advance the best interests of the child. it's even the actual name of the legal doctrine at work, which nobody seems to want you to know about. but, that doesn't reduce to increasing funding for the prison-industrial complex - it rather necessitates an attack on the foundations of the system, itself.
and, this is the thing about "progressives" - they consistently dress up these right-wing, status quo policies in this humanitarian language, to essentially trick you into advancing a corporatist agenda. and, they are taking incredible advantage of social media, and your naivete, in order to do this, right now.
don't misunderstand me - i think a good faith application of the court order to advance the best interests of the child means that you have to feed them, as you're quickly moving to place them into foster care. the whole point of the argument i'm making is to advance the best interests of the child. it's even the actual name of the legal doctrine at work, which nobody seems to want you to know about. but, that doesn't reduce to increasing funding for the prison-industrial complex - it rather necessitates an attack on the foundations of the system, itself.
and, this is the thing about "progressives" - they consistently dress up these right-wing, status quo policies in this humanitarian language, to essentially trick you into advancing a corporatist agenda. and, they are taking incredible advantage of social media, and your naivete, in order to do this, right now.
at
01:53
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)