The Case for a Government Monopoly on Prostitution

[Sunstone]

I would like to propose that the government monopolize prostitution by legalizing prostitution in government run bordellos, but outlawing it outside of those bordellos.

Laws could be written so that the prostitutes received the lion's share of their earnings -- perhaps as high as 70% or 80% of their fees in the form of salaries, medical and dental benefits, paid vacations, retirement funds, and so forth. The rest could go to overhead.

Beyond the fees themselves, taxes could be imposed on top of the fees.

In addition to the obvious regulations and laws that would require prostitutes to take weekly drug and STD tests, etc., johns could licensed. That is, in order for a john to use the services, he or she would need to produce an ID and license that could be swapped through an electronic device to make sure it was valid. If he or she abused a prostitute they could have their license revoked and face criminal and civil sanctions -- such as imprisonment, fines, law suites to recover damages, etc.

The details, of course, could vary, but that's the basic plan. Why or why not is this idea totally brilliant?

 

[Revoltingest]

Government would screw it up.
So unregulated criminal operations would still be around to satisfy demand.

 

[Sunstone]

Government would screw it up.

You seem to have unlimited faith in the ability of government to screw things up. But faith is often a poor excuse for imposing your views upon others.

So unregulated criminal operations would still be around to satisfy demand.

Most likely, such criminal operations would cater to things that were not legal in government bordellos -- such as child prostitution. But is that really an argument against government bordellos? That they would not allow child prostitution?

 

[freethinker44]

I don't think the government should run it, just regulate it. And I don't see the point of John licensing except for shaming people. I actually think John licensing would undermine legal prostitution because I don't think anyone is going to get a license to frequent prostitutes, but they won't stop frequenting prostitutes either so it will just force prostitutes who want to do it legally and safely back on to the streets to get customers.

 

[4consideration]

You seem to have unlimited faith in the ability of government to screw things up. But faith is often a poor excuse for imposing your views upon others.



Most likely, such criminal operations would cater to things that were not legal in government bordellos -- such as child prostitution. But is that really an argument against government bordellos? That they would not allow child prostitution?

(My highlighting.)

Were did you get this? I don't know where it's coming from.

 

[Revoltingest]

You seem to have unlimited faith in the ability of government to screw things up. But faith is often a poor excuse for imposing your views upon others.

My faith in gov's ability to fail might be exceeded only by your faith that they'll do a great job.
But of course, my statement was more about being punny.
That you fail to acknowledge it shows good taste.

Most likely, such criminal operations would cater to things that were not legal in government bordellos -- such as child prostitution. But is that really an argument against government bordellos? That they would not allow child prostitution?

That isn't my argument, since I've long been clear that I oppose child abuse (which child prostitution clearly is).
Instead, I argue that government would simply fail to meet the demand. And they'd likely manage to lose money,
& need taxpayer subsidies to boot. (Think Fannie Mae, Amtrak, USPS.)

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think the government should run it, just regulate it. And I don't see the point of John licensing except for shaming people.

There could be very strong prohibits and sanctions against revealing who had a license.

I actually think John licensing would undermine legal prostitution because I don't think anyone is going to get a license to frequent prostitutes, but they won't stop frequenting prostitutes either so it will just force prostitutes who want to do it legally and safely back on to the streets to get customers.

I think you could make strong laws that would discourage such behavior.

 

[Sunstone]

[/quote=Sunstone;3661405]You seem to have unlimited faith in the ability of government to screw things up. But faith is often a poor excuse for imposing your views upon others.



Most likely, such criminal operations would cater to things that were not legal in government bordellos -- such as child prostitution. But is that really an argument against government bordellos? That they would not allow child prostitution? [/quote]


(My highlighting.)

Were did you get this? I don't know where it's coming from.

Is it really an argument against government bordellos that some prostitution would still occur outside of government bordellos? Especially, forms of prostitution that would be illegal within government bordellos?

 

[LuisDantas]

Government monopoly of a particularly manipulative activity?

I don't think so.

 

[4consideration]

Is it really an argument against government bordellos that some prostitution would still occur outside of government bordellos? Especially, forms of prostitution that would be illegal within government bordellos?

Not necessarily -- on the first question.

I didn't see an argument presented about other forms of prostitution -- on the second.

 

[Sunstone]

My faith in gov's ability to fail might be exceeded only by your faith that they'll do a great job.
But of course, my statement was more about being punny.
That you fail to acknowledge it shows good taste.

I don't imagine government doing a great job. I just imagine them doing a better job than private enterprise -- either legal or illegal private enterprise. I think the fact that legal private brothels in some countries are associated with human trafficking is evidence that private enterprise hasn't set a very high bar to being outdone by government.

Instead, I argue that government would simply fail to meet the demand. And they'd likely manage to lose money,
& need taxpayer subsidies to boot. (Think Fannie Mae, Amtrak, USPS.)

Even if that were to happen, and I myself do not think it's inevitable, I would find it preferable to the current situation, or to private legal prostitution. For one thing, private legal prostitution seems unable to shake off child prostitution.

 

[freethinker44]

There could be very strong prohibits and sanctions against revealing who had a license.



I think you could make strong laws that would discourage such behavior.

It just seems like it would be easier to just regulate it like any other business instead of making it another government entity.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't imagine government doing a great job. I just imagine them doing a better job than private enterprise -- either legal or illegal private enterprise. I think the fact that legal private brothels in some countries are associated with human trafficking is evidence that private enterprise hasn't set a very high bar to being outdone by government.

I think of service/entertainment industries in general (restaurants, lawyers, movies,
theaters, janitorial, sports), & compare private vs government. I find private superior.

Even if that were to happen, and I myself do not think it's inevitable, I would find it preferable to the current situation, or to private legal prostitution. For one thing, private legal prostitution seems unable to shake off child prostitution.

While gov run brothels would be better than strictly criminal enterprises (except parts
of NV), to privatize & regulate it is better still. By analogy, consider the porn industry..
...does anyone seriously argue that government porn would be better?

 

[Sunstone]

It just seems like it would be easier to just regulate it like any other business instead of making it another government entity.

Doesn't seem to me like private businesses would drive enough of the profits back into the worker's own hands, for one thing. For another, private prostitution is hugely lucrative. That much money easily leads to corruption.

I'd not only put it in government hands, but I would at the very least encourage unionization of the labor force.

Yeah, I know, a conservative's nightmare.

 

[Sunstone]

I think of service/entertainment industries in general (restaurants, lawyers, movies,
theaters, janitorial, sports), & compare private vs government. I find private superior.

Most of those examples suffer from low pay and few benefits.

While gov run brothels would be better than strictly criminal enterprises (except parts
of NV), to privatize & regulate it is better still. By analogy, consider the porn industry..
...does anyone seriously argue that government porn would be better?

That's an excellent idea! We should create a government monopoly on porn, too!

 

[Revoltingest]

Doesn't seem to me like private businesses would drive enough of the profits back into the worker's own hands, for one thing. For another, private prostitution is hugely lucrative. That much money easily leads to corruption.
I'd not only put it in government hands, but I would at the very least encourage unionization of the labor force.

If we can only trust government to pimp the prostitutes, then why would they
need a union to protect their rights from the very same trustworthy government?

Yeah, I know, a conservative's nightmare.

And a socialist's dream.

I can just a government prostitution office....all the romance of the IRS, the hotties
of the DMV, the tenderness of the marines, & the intimacy of Homeland Security.
Come to think of it, Homeland has already earned some skill in this area.

 

[Sunstone]

If we can only trust government to pimp the prostitutes, then why would they
need a union to protect their rights from the very same trustworthy government?

Why do government workers already benefit from unions? Checks and balances. Checks and balances. It's an old idea, and a worthy one.

And a socialist's dream.

Now, don't start sweet talking me. I might decide this idea is more than a trial balloon.

 

[Revoltingest]

Most of those examples suffer from low pay and few benefits.
That's an excellent idea! We should create a government monopoly on porn, too!

So this isn't so much about nationalizing prostitution as it is about nationalizing everything, eh?

 

[Sunstone]

So this isn't so much about nationalizing prostitution as it is about nationalizing everything, eh?

Porn and prostitution are everything? Since when?

 

[Revoltingest]

Porn and prostitution are everything? Since when?

Of course they aren't everything, you wag.
But I detect a trend that you're adding to the businesses which become nationalized, & made illegal to do privately.

What risks are there with your plan?
Presidents & Congressmen come & go, as does party control. Your unions might strike over something, & a future Reagan will fire every last one of them. Or a social conservative might gain control, & wipe out the National Nookie Network with the stroke of a pen, leaving us with prohibition again. But if privately run, a strong pandering lobby would ensure continued stability.