The Instigator
Bob16
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
CABAL93
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should the Nordic model be applied in prostitution law?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2019 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,002 times Debate No: 122560
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (107)
Votes (0)

 

Bob16

Pro

The legal policy to prostitution was always a complex issue, In many countries laws were changing from criminalization, To partly-, Or fully decriminalization, Tolerance, Spatial segregation or even regulation during the centuries and were often reversed after seeing different problems arising from newly adopted policies.
Punishing the client and pimp, While not punishing the prostitute is however a relatively new approach, That provides benefits for fighting criminals and protecting victims of abuse/coerced prostitutes.

As every law, Prostitution law has advantages and disadvantages and conflicting interests cannot necessarily be resolved in an equal manner, That is we have to prioritize which values needs the most support when adopting a prostitution policy. Should it support the willing prostitutes, Whose wellfare is not depending on the money they receive, The non-criminal third parties, Like providers of travelling and location for the business, Should it support local residents who complain about the side-effects of prostitution, Public health policies against the spread of STIs, The johns (who buy sex), Or the abused victims coerced to become prostitutes?

The position of this argument is that the first priority should be the support of abused/coerced prostitutes, And lowering their absolute numbers when deciding over a prostitution law. All other support for other interests are secondary of importance.

Following this logic, How can we best serve the interests of coerced victims and lower their numbers effectively? 1) Prevent their entry and 2) support their exit from prostitution.
1) Punishing the demand, Can decrease the total number of prostitutes required in the sector and thus decrease the absolute number of those prostitutes who are coerced as well. This hurts the interest of high-end prostitutes, Pimps and johns but serves the interest of coerced victims. If we follow the priority, We value this action as beneficial. Direct policy: punish clients.
2) Providing alternatives for prostitutes to exit this business also help coerced victims to find a way out. This hurt the interests of pimps and johns but helps the victims.
Direct policy: cease persecution of prostitutes, To not fear reprisal when reporting their history to authorities, Create rehabilitation centres, Employment options, Helping organizations, Translations, Education etc.

These actions are included simultaneously in the Nordic model, Which punishes clients and decriminalizes prostitutes, Thus this policy is the most beneficial in order to save as many trafficked/abused victims in prostitution as possible.
CABAL93

Con

First thing is that a separation must be made between willing prostitution and coerced prostitution. Everybody is for criminalization when it comes to trafficking and coring with violence people to become prostitutes, (or any job for that manner). But a case can be made for decriminalization in terms of willing prostitutes. I think you might make this distinction as well when you talk about coerced victims. What people don't talk about is the fact that the criminalization approach have destructive side effects that are easy to predict because incentive is created on buyers to be a lot more careful when it comes to handing out information and the places that they are willing to have the activity because they are affraid of getting caught which endangers the seller more than would be the case if it were legal and proper safe places could be established which neither threatens the buyer nor the seller. In the case of full criminalization, Both parties are affraid of getting caught.

The thing is that if the market was allowed to handle this industry freely, Then quality of the service would go up and the price of the service would go down just as it does when the market handles any product or service. Free market competition and supply and demand. When the market is not allowed to function, The price of the service goes up which creates the incentive to conduct things like coercion and trafficking because it becomes profitable. (Just like the drug war situation). Try to end demand is really a fantasy. The buyers keep looking for alternative ways of buying what they want regardless of how it gets criminalized (again drug war, Perfect example).

The whole thing should be completely legal and handed over to the free market because it would help those in the industry the most and it would lower the economic incentive to conduct trafficking. The resources and attention should instead be placed on actually capturing the real criminals and punishing them.
Debate Round No. 1
Bob16

Pro

"First thing is that a separation must be made between willing prostitution and coerced prostitution. "
When I talk about trafficked victims I consider coerced victims of course. (Without coercion there would be no victim. )

First of all, Do you agree that the goal of decreasing the number of victims is the primary goal that a prostitution policy must adapt to?

Secondly, Lets compare the arguments pro and con for criminalizing the buyer (aka 1st criteria of Nordic model):
A) you said: "buyers [. . . ] are affraid of getting caught which endangers the seller more than would be the case if it were legal"

B) I say: full legalization results in an expanding business, Which means more demand. Women are unwilling to fulfill this higher demand, Thus coercion, Kidnapping and sex trafficking strengthens to fill the demand.

As both arguments follow logic, Their power need to be proved and scaled against each other.

I have supportive evidence:
Germany"s population is about 10 times as large as Sweden"s, But it has 69 times as many prostitutes and an estimated 62 times as many trafficking victims - (Dailova-Trainor, G. & Belser, P. (2006). Globalization and the illicit market for human
trafficking: An empirical analysis of supply and demand. )

"On average, Countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows" - Cho, S. Y. , Dreher, A. , & Neumayer, E. (2013). Does legalized prostitution increase human trafficking? . World Development, 41, 67-82.

Can you provide statistics, Authority reports, Studies supporting your hypothesis?

Market effects:
A) you said: "When the market is not allowed to function, The price of the service goes up which creates the incentive to conduct things like coercion and trafficking because it becomes profitable. "

B) I say: When the market is allowed to function (buyer is not criminalized), The price of the service goes down which creates less power for prostitutes to deny humiliating/dangerous activities compromising their health and safety. Regariding profitability, Don't forget that it doesnt depend only on the price, But the number of prostitutes used by pimps, Which latter heavily increase under legalization (see above). In fact pimps do want legalization, To make their trafficking and brothel owning easier to mask from authorities.

I have support:
"it can be hard to make money, And for every woman unwilling to perform something risky (such as not insisting on the man using a condom) there"s another willing to try it"
link1

"Decriminalising sex in Germany in 2002 [Created] "mega-brothels" that were not being monitored. This made sex trafficking easier"
link2

""[NSWP], Support the decriminalisation of sex work. Alejandra Gil, The NSWP"s former vice-president, Was jailed for 15 years for sex trafficking"
link3

Can you provide statistics, Authority reports, Studies supporting your hypothesis?

To sum up, Please answer regarding the goal of a policy to check whether we are on a common goal at all, And after please provide support (if you have) on the two arguments (effects on punishing buyers and market effects). Thank you.
CABAL93

Con

As a libertarian my ultimate goal is always maximization of individual freedom. Meaning self ownership and private property rights. I argue that the side effects of this is also maximization of wages, Safety etc. I don't use empiricism generally in social sciences in order to draw conclusions, Including these ones. In natural sciences it works fine and dandy to use observations in order to draw conclusions because the scientists have control over all factors involved whereas in social sciences like sociology and economics there are so many factors present so that it becomes impossible to replicate identical experiments and draw conclusion from these. For instance the Germany example you use do not take into account the fact that it is not full decriminalization that exits in this country. I recommend the TED talk with sex worker Juno Mac who calls the German example "backdor criminalization" because it is only legal to sell if you can go through a whole series of regulation and many people that sell wants quick money and therefore has to take the criminal routes anyway. Because of the regulation on the industry the price of the service is driven up higher than it would otherwise be because regulations always cost money for business. This makes it easier for people selling in criminal ways (including trafficking) to undercut the price of legal business. Juno Mac recommends the example set by New Zealand and she provides data on how it works there, Including the fact that a very high portion of sellers feel that they are protected in their work. In countries that instead tries to prohibit in different ways it becomes more difficult to collect stats for obvious reasons. So it becomes very easy for proponents of prohibition to argue that it's so bad because they can claim that prohibition works by using vague data that they themselves claim are accurate. In Sweden for instance (where i live) all political parties are strong supporters of the Nordic model and of course they are also in control of investigations of how the law is working and of course they are always saying and coming to the conclusion that it works really well, Despite the fact that many are being hurt by this model. And the problems after 20 years of this model are still rampant. (Like the drug war that also never ends despite endless failure).

Another thing worth bringing up is the problem of treating the prostitution industry like a completely separate industry with it's own logic that does not apply elsewhere. Of course many people in this industry hate their job and have poor conditions, But is this not true for other types of jobs as well? Do we argue that because there are people that hate their job and have poor conditions in plumbing, Teaching, Sanitation, Restaurants etc etc we should end demand in these areas as well? We even have trafficking in these other types of jobs but for some reason we do not apply the same logic here as we do in prostitution. In these other places we chase the real criminals instead and help workers with psychological help for instance if they feel bad or urge them to change their job. Why not approach the prostitution industry the same way? One might say: "prostitution is so much worse". But is that really a universal fact? Who could answer that question other than the person in question, If it really is worse or not than the alternatives. The best way to help is to provide more alternatives to people to chose from so that only those that really want to work in that industry has to and the way to achieve that is to allow the market to be as free as possible.

(Instead of trying to draw conclusions or induce social laws from empirical observations, I use the method of deducing logical truths from a priori true axioms. Thereby avoiding the problem empiricists have that i described before. Called Praxeology for the interested one. )
Debate Round No. 2
Bob16

Pro

"As a libertarian my ultimate goal is always maximization of individual freedom. Meaning self ownership and private property rights. " So you disagree, That is, Your goal is not to decrease the number of victims, But increase individual freedom in general. This means that you would find acceptable if 10 workers gets abused/raped as a side effect in a business, If 100 other workers are free to do this job to get money fast, As this increases individual freedom per capita. I don"t find this trade acceptable, I would rather eliminate a business if 10 workers get abused/raped as a side effect, And extract those victims from their environment, Even if it means that 100 other workers will need to find another job.

I would like to note, That regarding your previous arguments, You didn"t provide scientific support, While I did. (check comments for sources as well)

"I don't use empiricism generally in social sciences in order to draw conclusions, Including these ones. " Instead of speculation only, You should consider empirical evidence, As it is important in all fields of science, Even in sociology or natural sciences like ecology, Where not all factors are known. Also, You contradicted yourself as you wanted to highlight that Juno Mac showed empirical data: "she provides data on how it works there" (although you didn"t provide direct access to inspect those data).

"For instance the Germany example you use do not take into account the fact that it is not full decriminalization that exits in this country. " You said you want full legalization: "The whole thing should be completely legal and handed over to the free market". Germany legalized prostitution, Not decriminalised, That"s why Germany is a very good example.

"it is only legal to sell if you can go through a whole series of regulation and many people that sell wants quick money and therefore has to take the criminal routes anyway". This is what legalization means, You have to comply to regulations otherwise you are still illegal, Again, You desired this policy. Legalization comes with regulations in any business.

"Because of the regulation on the industry the price of the service is driven up higher than it would otherwise be because regulations always cost money for business. " Here, You contradicted your previous argument, Where you said: "if the market was allowed to handle this industry freely, Then quality of the service would go up and the price of the service would go down just as it does when the market handles any product or service. " And if you mistyped and want simply decriminalization instead of legalization, Then its not a "free market" but a grey market, There are no authorities to do health checks, Quality inspections, Safety net etc.

"Another thing worth bringing up is the problem of treating the prostitution industry like a completely separate industry with it's own logic that does not apply elsewhere. " Although this is irrelevant of the Nordic model topic here, I will reply to this as well. The logic is not different. Under some objectively specified conditions a job or business can be deemed inhumane and prohibited. For example working below minimum wage or under discrimination, Or sexual harassment etc. As prostitution has terrible work indicators, Even when its legal, (rape risk, Physical assault risk, Murder risk, Substance abuse risk, STD risk, PTSD risk etc. ) it cannot be considered as a humane job. Do we ban a business if it pays a dollar below minimum wage to 100 employees for cleaning glasses, Meanwhile we would find okay if 60 of the same 100 employees get raped yearly while working for minimum wage? I don"t think its more acceptable. E. G. Asbestos manufacturing and child labour got banned based on health concerns, The same should be applied to prostitution. To protect prostitutes, While decreasing the demand, The Nordic model provides the best policy, Creating escape routes for prostitutes and punishing clients.
CABAL93

Con

I was very clear when i said that my ultimate goal is maximization of freedom and that the side effects of this is maximization of better conditions for everybody. So it is not a choice between freedom with tons of misery and government control and well being. The choice is between freedom and well being together and government control and misery together. All the laws and safety nets etc. That you bring up ultimately hurt people despite their good intentions. Safety and higher wages does not come from government regulation it comes from free market competition, Which is why jobs pay way more and have much better safety today than a hundred or a thousand years ago. Because market competition have produced higher levels of wealth that enables higher standards of living.

And i do provide scientific evidence. All "scientific" evidence is not empirical in the positivist way of thinking. 2+2=4 is not true because of empirical testing, It is true because it is an a priori truth that we can from mere logic alone determine that it is necessarily true. It's a question about epistemology (and i recommend "Praxeology: The Method of Economics | Hans-Hermann Hoppe" on YouTube for this subject). Empirical observations in social sciences can be used in order to highlight the necessary truths that we can know with certainty. And in the questions that we can not know from logic alone then we have to settle for empirical observations. (For instance do people prefer McDonalds over Burger King? We can not answer this from logic alone, We have to make observations in order to get an answer. However the question: Does minimum wage laws increase wages for all the people earning less than minimum wage? This question we can answer by using logic alone because we know what the purpose of a business is (profit) and we can logically conclude that if a law makes workers expensive do the degree that they are no longer profitable to hire then they won't be hired.

By using logic and the rationalist approach it is possible to answer questions about the effects of laws against prostitution. For instance. To eliminate options does not help people because they have to move down on their list of preferred options. You in your on subjective valuation may say that: "This is so much worse than the alternatives therefore this alternative must be eliminated". But why should that be any more justified than me in my subjective opinion declare that: "This profession x must be eliminated because it's awful". As i said before, Only individuals own subjective preferences and choices matter. You may thinks that it's awful but others like Juno Mac for instance think that it's a job that is better than the alternatives.

(Germany is a bad example because regardless of term, Decriminalization or legalization, The ultimate goal for me is to have the industry completely legal decriminalized with 0 government interference with the industry other than punishing the real criminals that engage in real physical violence. Germany does not fit that description in the least). (Therefore also i did not contradict myself about falling price because i don't want the regulation of the industry that drives up the price. And this would be a free market and not grey market).

(Juno Mac is referring to groups and institutions that provide the data)

And your last paragraph now. The industry does get it's own logic because even if people argue to close down a specific business they don't argue that the whole industry and production of that service or product should be banned. There are today poor working conditions in hospitals in Sweden for instance with long hours, Bad conditions etc. But no one argues that we must end the demand on hospitals or getting rid these jobs permanently like it's argued in prostitution. As i have argued argued before, The only way to better conditions and wages is free market competition and the government interference will only screw this up.
Debate Round No. 3
107 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CABAL93 2 years ago
CABAL93
Thanks to you as well. Of course i have more to say about those things that you said but maybe it's time for a pause on this discussion. It's difficult to find out what ideas are right and to engage in debates to have are own ideas challenged is a good way to perhaps come a bit closer to discover what is actually right and true.
Posted by Bob16 2 years ago
Bob16
I guess we don't agree on these topics, Only on the fact that you would let thosands die to keep one persons freedom. You would legalize military weapons and you are an anarcho-capitalist. Also, You find the concept of likelihood estimation "problematic" and if someone would be hitting his own face with a hammer, You would not stop him (not very philantrope, Or humane if you ask me).
I don't see the use to make this discussion longer. We see this world very differently, Could not persuade the other with arguments (or evidence) to accept our truth, But nevertheless thank you for the debate.
Posted by CABAL93 2 years ago
CABAL93
No. Maybe it would be considered a form of sacifice to not go for an act that one has reason to belive might work but it would not be a full sacrifeice because i would keep looking for ways to prevent it.

Yes i would legalize military weapons for everyone. If the person choose another option than the one that the rich added then it would have been the same without the rich man so the end result is the same level of well-being even though he hada better position in choosing additional opptions. The rich man did not reduce well-being.

How is your argument correct? You seem to say thaat it's unfair and what is needed is regulation. Sometimes big business win sometimes they don't, In the market it does not matter.

Same as UFO example. One has eye witness testimony that there was flying a UFO the other does not have any witnesses that there was no UFO. The concept of likelyhood is problematic.

One can not create a generelized average human preference and make everything based on that. There are people that like to smash themselves in their face with a hammer but we don't have to make it illegal just let those people do that, If there are people that prefer prostitution over other professions let them do that, Regardless of what other people think.
Posted by Bob16 2 years ago
Bob16
Thats not the point, The point is that you would sacrifice the life of thousands for the freedom of one. Thats crazy.

No the situation has not improved, Because now there could be more victims. Don't forget, That simply increasing the choice options is not a straightforward way to increase wellbeing. The real world is not that simple. There are multiple effects of the same change and these effects interact with each other.
Would you legalize military weapons for everyone?

"Often big business can"
thank you admitting that my argument was correct

I don't see that relevant, I was talking about likelihood. If one option has supportive evidence and the other does not, Then which is more likely?

"Both are true depending on the individual. "
we are not talking about individuals here, We are talking about statistical average.
Strawman logical fallacy, I never said that all jobs need to be banned which has a better one, I said that those need to be banned which are worse compared to the already banned ones.
Posted by CABAL93 2 years ago
CABAL93
The thing is that it's impossible to know that that is the only possible solution because that would imply omniscient knowledge about the universe wich is not a part of reality.

It's the same scenario that i have handled before. Without the person only option ABC availible with the person ABCD. The situation has improved because he or she now has one more option avalible.

Often big business can but far from always. There are countlless of small business in exisense but even if he big business does outcompete the smmall business it does not matter because that only means that the ig business does a better job of serving the consumers.

It has nothing to do with a priori. Both examples are based on empirism. If one or two prostitutes makes
claims about their own experience then we have an indication of their experience just like in the UFO example where we also get an indication. The prostitute example is stronger because it has to do with things like how near in place and time etc. In both cases we can't know for certain we only get indications. The prostitute is stronger but then this observation also gets generelized to other experiences among prostitutes and now the requirement of streanght in the evidence increases dramatically which is what the statistical signifigance is about.

It was worse from the childrens perspective because they chose factory over prostitution, Maybe there was examples of the opposite as well and in which case prostitution would have been better than factory. Both are true depending on the individual. So following that logic all jobs should be banned because somebody deems that particular job as absolutely horrifying.
Posted by Bob16 2 years ago
Bob16
It doesnt matter. If this was the only option then you would let thousands of innocents being violated.

If one person is on the brink of hunger and doing it for food or for medicine or for shelter for example.

Large business can undercut small business easier than vica versa.

Thats a loaded example, Thus a wrong one, It implies that my, And only my version is extremely unlikely a priori. A better example would be that one person says that he saw a red sportcar and another says the sportcar was green, But the there are two other people saying the car was red.

"Yes it's worse, But not objectively. " So prostitution was worse, Then it should have been banned for a long time, Easy. I disagree with your last sentence.
Posted by CABAL93 2 years ago
CABAL93
I would not just let it happen, I would try to look for other possibilities of preventing it but i would not violate her rights.

Necessity is another difficult word. Is it just transactions in the sense that if they don't happen the other person dies?

Remind me of your argument again and how exactly it's correct.

Not really. If there is eye witness testimony that there was a UFO flying around above a field and the skeptics don't have evidence against it then it does not mean that it's more likely that a UFO was flying around rather than no UFO flying around. And again i have presented evidence as well.

Yes it's worse, But not objectively. It was worse from the children's own subjective preferences or their parents. And those "vital" occupations you list. Most of humanity have lived completely without nearly all of it.
Posted by Bob16 2 years ago
Bob16
So you would let thousands of innocents die, Just not to kidnap one innocent. That sounds very evil to me.

Could be measured categorically, If one person is doing the transaction out of necessity, While the other is not, Then there is power inequality.

Thank you for admitting that my argument is correct.

I think you don't understand the concept of likelihood and thats the problem here. If one scenario has evidence (regardless of strength) while the other doesnt have, Then the first is more likely to happen.

See? Even your own argument is about prostitution being worse than another occupation that was already banned. Survival means all occupations that are vital, Doctors, Police, Firefighters, Food production, Clothing production, Medicine etc.
Posted by CABAL93 2 years ago
CABAL93
It should not have been banned* (asbest factories)
Posted by CABAL93 2 years ago
CABAL93
No i would not violate her rights in that scenario.

Here is the same problem as the problem of suffering. How do you measure power objectively? What's your definition of power and how would you measure it objectively?

If they do that there's no problem because in order to stay at the top they have to keep quality at the highest possible and price at the lowest possible otherwise they are gonna risk competitors coming in big or small. Which they can do anyway with new technology, Innovations etc. Forcing the established company to look for new innovations as well.

No because the evidence as i pointed out before is not strong enough to draw generalized conclusions and even if it were true the good effects would have to be compared with the bad effects.

It should not have been bad. One has to remember that people choose the least bad option available. The US some years ago put a ban on some products from Bangladesh because they used child labor. The result of this was that the children had to go into a profession that they themselves deemed worse which in that case was prostitution and going back to the fields with even worse conditions. Just like suffering and power, Society is another vaguely defined term that can not be measured objectively either. So to say something like "survival of society" what does this mean?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.