The US should decriminalize prostitution

The crux of this debate, it seems, will be the issue of whether or not self-harm should be regulated by the Government. I have no interest in arguing that prostitution is harmful to anyone except for those who take part in prostitution, nor will I argue that decriminalizing prostitution will lead to more nonconsensual prostitution – my opponent has dealt with those arguments already, and in an agreeable manner. John Locke, arguably one of the most prominent proponents of self-ownership and the man responsible for modern conceptions of property rights, explicitly argued against the idea that all actions which do not affect others should be allowed. Quoting from his Second Treatise: “But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself” [1] As can be seen, he regarded certain acts as being impermissible regardless of the fact that they affect only the self – in the quote, he specifically addresses suicide, but the principle can be carried over to any example of self-harm, since, in harming one’s self, one destroys the capacity to live (or, at the very least, shows no respect for it), which is obviously the foundation of any moral system. John Stuart Mill, who my opponent references, offers much the same opinion himself: “The reason for not interfering, unless for the sake of others, with a person's voluntary acts, is consideration for his liberty. His voluntary choice is evidence that what he so chooses is desirable, or at the least endurable, to him, and his good is on the whole best provided for by allowing him to take his own means of pursuing it. But by selling himself for a slave, he abdicates his liberty; he forgoes any future use of it, beyond that single act. He therefore defeats, in his own case, the very purpose which is the justification of allowing him to dispose of himself. He is no longer free; but is thenceforth in a position which has no longer the presumption in its favour, that would be afforded by his voluntarily remaining in it. The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free. It is not freedom, to be allowed to alienate his freedom.” [2] In essence, in order for the freedom that my opponent values to be meaningful, it must not include the freedom to destroy itself – you cannot be free to not be free and still be free. As such, the concept that self-harm is always permissible has been totally laid to rest (using my opponent’s own source, no less! [3]). This means that I must only show that prostitution destroys the freedom to be free – if I can do so, all other concerns will be rendered irrelevant. I accept my opponent’s characterization of prostitution as being just the exchange of money for sex. Where we differ is in our conceptions of sex itself. I take no issue with the claim that, if sex is to be allowed, so should sex for money – I would rather challenge the premiss that sex should be allowed in the first place. First, what is the self? The human self, as distinguished from the selves of animals, has the characteristic of rationally-informed will. Where an animal may kill another for food, a human will build a farm. Freedom must be understood in relation to this self. To be free means to be free to live as a human, with everything that that implies – it is for this reason that Mill argues against “selling oneself into slavery”, since in doing so one forfeits their ability to practice their rational free will, even if they can still choose what crop to tend to first (for this is a different, more superficial, type of freedom – it’s essentially blind will). For someone to be free, then, they must exercise their rationally-guided will. Choosing not to be free, as Mill says, should be restricted by the State, so any act which, when taken, would lessen freedom should be restricted. Sex falls under this category, as sex is an act wherein the participants do nothing but treat each other as means to an end. There is no respect for personhood inherent within sex – sex does not relate, in any way, with what it means to be human. Insofar as a person can enjoy sex, an animal could enjoy it to the same degree. It is wholly a primitive process that is only desired because of uncontrollable urges (i.e. urges not tempered by reason). The animal desire to have sex (beyond what is necessary for procreation) is inherently irrational, as it relies solely on the desire for the fulfillment of the passions. No syllogism can prove the worth of sex that does not already assume its conclusion – for one to attempt such a task, one must first assume the premiss that “sex is desirable”, which itself must be rationally justified. Therefore, unless my opponent can show that sex is rational, insofar as one partakes in it one is giving up their nature as a free entity. This should be countered with governmental force in order to maintain the freedom of all. As an aside, sex is distinct from other animalistic behaviours (such as eating or sleeping) in that it is non-essential. One can continue living without having sex – the same cannot be said about abstaining from eating. This distinction renders any potential counterargument about the extensions of my case impotent. [1] http://www.constitution.org... [2] https://www.gutenberg.org... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org...