Strange, that you'd say so since a lot of hookers end up diseased, discarded, and dead. You want to try that again?
Wait, you don't want to talk about actual prostitution and the material conditions which drive people into working as prostitutes. No, you want to talk about prostitution as a sort of abstract concept right? We're supposed to imagine that in a world of legal prostitution, no one would be significantly exploited or harmed.
OK, here comes the point again [Bracketing, for the moment, the question of whether legal prostitution entails no harm to anyone (an assertion from hell)]. Try not to miss it twice.
1. T'Girl brought in libertarianism as an ideology which could justify Federation Prostitution.
2. The libertarian basically holds that person should be free to do whatever they wish so long as it does no harm to anyone else. If I want to smoke, that's my biz. If I want to eat fatty foods, that's my biz. Etc. Etc. Self harm is OK, so long as I do not harm others.
With #1 and #2 we have a justificatory logic for prostitution. Prostitution is justified, because it does not violate the other-harm principle advocated by libertarians.
If, however, we find an example that serves as an exception to the other-harm principle, however, then we discover that matters are more complicated than the libertarian suggests. In such a case, we would not be able to stand on libertarianism as a justification we could use for any activity.
That case is found in...
3. The German Cannibalist Here we have a case which puts our libertarian sensibilities to the test. If you say that the state should not allow for these activities (i.e., cannibalism), then you are not a pure libertarian and cannot, therefore, invoke simple libertarianism (resting on the other-harm principle) as the justification for prostitution.
It's funny that you object to the example, but do so under grounds which simply prove my point. You object to this example, because it involves self-harm, but so what? Self-harm is OK under libertarianism. You object to cannibalism which involves harm, but throw a thumbs up to prostitution because it does not. Libertarians, however, allow for harm so long as it is voluntary. If you really want to smoke Black Lung ciggaretes, the libertarian won't tell you "No."
Again, the example is offered by Micheal Sandel (an eminent philosopher) making the same point as myself.
LOL, even if I did, such notions would be irrelevant to our discussion, unless you want commit the genetic fallacy.
Wow, this is quite possibly the most ignorant thing anyone has ever said on the internet. Congrats.
If you take a reasonable person of good will (i.e., not you) and put them behind the veil of ignorance and tell them that they can pick one of two realities. You can work an average minimum wage job or you can live the life (it ain't just a job, there's a reason they call it "the life"), of the average prostitute. Which do you pick?
And there are some manual labor jobs which are exploitative and which I oppose on moral grounds.
As a conceptual ideal, it is possible to imagine women freely entering into this workforce freely. Then again, I can imagine honor among thieves, honest politicians, and unicorns. Moving away from the conceptual ideal, to the material realities that drive women into this trade in the first place complicates matters considerably.
In addition we have to consider the Kantian argument which is a priori.
Ah yes, if only prostitution were legal all the problems would melt away. A "legal" dehumanizing and degrading job is still harmful. The same sort of people who fall into illegal prostitution would wind up in legal brothels. The health checks benefit the Johns, not the prostitutes. When the prostitute gets a disease (when the condom breaks, when mouth-to-mouth contact, when mouth-to-genital contact occurs, etc.), it is the prostitute who is kicked out of the legal sex-trade. The Johns, however, are protected from her because she is put right back out on the street where the pimp is waiting for her and where the legal market forces her to make even riskier choices (for less money) than she did before.
At any rate, I think the issue is complicated. I am not sure whether continued criminalization, decriminalization, or legalization is the answer. This isn't as simple as talking about pot. Whatever the answer is, we have to consider which behaviors, in principle (regardless of effects), are acceptable and dignified enough that allow for them. We have to consider the material realities that drive people into this lifestyle. We have to consider how legalization ramifies.
If it isn't as simple as "Do what you want so long as you don't bother me" (which is what the cannibal example establishes), then we have to seriously consider the complexity of the issue.
Please cite these examples of legal prostitutes facing the sort of issues you bring up.
Your argument is nothing more than a continued assertion that prostitution is degrading. You don't say why, so I can't respond. It's just charging money for a service. And yes there are many worse jobs.
So you're dropping the charge of irrelevance with Sandel's example?
Um, no. Where did you get that from? As I wrote previously, that example involved killing and bodily harm. The state has an interest in trying to preventing those things.
Legal, safe, consensual prostitution is merely an exchange of a service for money. The state has no significant interest in preventing voluntary prostitution.