DISQUS

I understand that you don't like Klein's erratic political views, etc., but I don't think ad hominem attacks do much to advance your point of view. I read Klein as a journalist. She's drawing attention to what she sees as abuses of power stemming from the disparities that arise when one person or group is in crisis and another party that is safe comes to their aid. The archetype she describes is a loan shark, putting the squeeze on their hapless victim who had no one else to turn to. It's a caricature, so there should be no problem debunking the caricature she describes without the bother of getting into her persona. You can go after her upbringing, what she's getting out of being in the public eye, etc. But if the data is on your side, that's all beside the point. She has plenty of real world events that she gets her data from. Why not just debate those? She uses Friedman as a hook, and probably hasn't read his materials in depth. Take her personality out of the picture, and you still have the question that she presents: do corporations and governments intentionally take advantage of people who are in crisis? No need to look to Klein after that, just analyze the data in each specific case. Hell, throw it all into a book and call it "Clutch Capitalism: How Markets Matter Most when Disaster Strikes" or something like that. For all the anti-Klein pieces I've read, no one seems to bother to have done that yet. I don't think that's indicative of her being correct; I think it indicates that her critics really just want to dispatch her and be done with it.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Um, sorry, I still haven't processed the loss yet. Carry on).

Jacob,

I really do see where you're coming from in all of this. One of the themes in Predictably Irrational (reviewed on this blog earlier) is that once an activity that was regulated by social capital becomes overtly commercial, the expectations change completely. One we as a society go around then bend, we won't be able to just come back. There are a lot of considerations that should be made before action was taken.

Regarding voting, I would say that you don't "own" your vote, in the sense that it illegal to sell (the same way you don't seem to be able to properly say you own your body). Your vote is protected, because you are entitled to solely determmine it (kind've of like your body, to a certain extent, with some very important exceptions), but while it's protected, you don't have full control over it. But you can be persuaded by things that benefit you indirectly.

Aaron

Jacob,

This is all fairly idle talk right now, as I don't envision a large enough legalization movement arising around this issue. While we do need to make moral judgements, we also need to consider the enforcement costs and benefits to any given law. One could make a case for the banning of alcohol in light of its known health effects and secondary effects in drunk driving accidents and increased violence. Are we not being moral enough by giving up on prohibition? And your argument implies that there is something to sex that is unique among human activities, its relationship to marriage. I don't know if I want to see that much rigidity in the law. Would that extend to cohabitation prior to marriage? Would there be a limit to the number of sexual partners one could have? I think what it comes down to for people who don't support the practice (which I believe the vast majority of the libertarian bloggers absolutely don't) is whether or not its sufficient to just not participate in the market. But again, I believe this amounts to more of a libertarian exercise than a social movement.

Organ markets, on the other hand...

(Oh, and I've reserved kidneybay.com, just in case.)

Well, I don't know if he's framing the question wrong. I admit I don't particularly like the framing, because I think it's trying to deliberately play down something we are wired to take very seriously. But that isn't a reason to make the practice of selling sex illegal. The whole debate reminded me of the joke where a guy asks a woman if she'd sleep with him for $10,000 and she says yes. He then offers 50 bucks and she becomes livid and asks "What, do you think I'm some kind of hooker?" He replies "We've already established that, now we're talking price." Once you establish that prostiution isn't "by its nature" inflicting self-harm, you lose the reason why people need to be protected from it for their own good.

Freedom isn’t harmless, but it usually beats the alternatives.

I do agree that the "BAN IT" reaction is usually the wrong call (I actually do support organ markets). In the case of prositution, I would like to see more regulation than probably could be realistically enacted, so there would necessarily be unseemliness to the industry, regardless of what the prevailing social norms would come to. I feel the same way about child labor. There isn't anything inherent to "childhood" that entitles someone to a particular expectation of treatment, but I kinda like the societal norms we have that would prevent hard labor for those under the age of 12. My opnion doesn't matter much to people in other countries who are trying to survive on something more concrete than my goodwill. I was arguing more against Will's take that there is nothing beyond societal disapproval that is negative in prostitution. Like you said, the existence of a negative in a legalized endeavor isn't enough to warrant banning it. I just want to be up front about the fact that there would be costs, so we don't get caught up in ideology either way.

This is all just a veiled way of arguing for organ sales, isn't it? Well, when you wake up in a bathtub full of ice missing a kidney, don't come crying to me...

As to sex being different, I wouldn't write that off entirely. I can go to work on days that I don't want to be there, go through the motions, and get paid, no worse for the wear. However, regular emotional detachment from sex acts I think could become a problem, were prostitutes (male or female) to do so on a regular basis. The answer to long term psychological risks for prostitution clearly isn't jail, so I wouldn't write off legalization entirely. I'm just not as optimistic about how harmless it would be if society was more accepting.