State-run brothels

For people who support legalizing prostitution, I've got two questions:

(1) What are your thoughts on the idea that legalizing prostitution would increase sex trafficking?

(2) Do you think a system where all brothels/prostitution is state-run and regulated, i.e. nationalized, is workable?

how does (1) follow? What's the logic?

(2), any business that can possibly be run can in theory be run by a government. If such a nationalized model were implemented in a country like the US, it would likely look like a government licensing scheme for prostitutes that are employed by private businesses. All brothels would be required to register their prostitutes and all registered prostitutes would require a license. To obtain a license you would merely have to prove your identity and of course pay a fee. To audit brothels, a regulatory body could do any number of things. For example they could check if the number of customers they service at a time is feasible for the number of licensed prostitutes they employ. I'm not an expert on compliance but I've heard of some pretty creative ways that regulations can be enforced. Imo yes definitely workable, and likely better than an unregulated market. 

On (1), two reasons:

1. Legalization increases demand. Not enough people want to be sex workers, so the way to meet that demand is human trafficking. 

2. A lot of technically licensed/legal sex workers are trafficking victims; however, police can't distinguish legal sex workers from trafficked ones, or legal pimps from ones that engage in trafficking, in a system where privately-run brothels are legal. FourTrouble explained this best in a DDO debate: "Most 'legal prostitutes' are trafficking victims. Unfortunately, police can't do anything about that, because police can't distinguish legal prostitutes from trafficking victims, or legal pimps from traffickers. Police also can't arrest trafficking victims, which is a huge problem, because most trafficking victims don't seek help. Pimps manipulate victims to think they're not victims, or to think they'll be killed if they seek help. So, the only effective way to rescue trafficking victims is arresting them for prostitution."

Also, on (2), that just sounds like government regulation of a private market. I mean a fully nationalized system, to avoid the problems of human trafficking mentioned above. 

Where do you get this information? Not enough people want to be sex workers, you're fucking kidding yourself. Most sex workers are trafficked? Get a dose of reality. What your preacher teaches you is not the truth. Supply some stats to support your nonsense.

(1) I didn't say most sex workers are trafficked, the person I quoted did. I didn't say that I agreed with every word of the person I quoted.

(2) Both of the things I said do have statistics backing them up. See, for instance, this. This as well. This evidence is certainly questionable -- and I'm definitely not sure about it; in fact, I support legalizing prostitution.

(3) You certainly seem to need a dose of epistemic humility. The fact that someone might oppose legalizing prostitution -- and, again, that's not me, I support legalization -- doesn't automatically mean they're saying things "their preacher told them to say"; the fact that you think that, if anything, is an indicator that you're the one who's full of nonsense. There's definitely empirical evidence on both sides of the debate; it's debatable. People like you, with your absolute certainty that you're right when no expert in the field has that level of certainty, and with being willing to call anyone who disagrees with you "full of nonsense," are what makes the left look bad. 

(4) Even if you think I'm wrong, there's no need for hostility. Here's a few reasons why hostility is unproductive to conversation: (a) It prevents you from having an understanding of the other side. (b) It prevents you from being able to question your own opinion. (c) It alienates people who you might be able to find meaningful interaction with. I'm successfully alienated.

You've both (1) lost all credibility and (2) been unnecessarily hostile. I'm now being hostile because I've learned that I don't really give a sh!t if I alienate someone like you. Good day. 

There is obviously a misunderstanding on my part and I apologise but if you use the quote feature in the tool bar directly above where you are typing your response things would be clearer. Thanks.

It's cute how you're pretending that was the only reason for your hostility.

It's also bizarre.

I'd also note that if you bothered to read my post rather than skim through it and jump to conclusions, it would be clear.

That's obviously bullshit but keep it up, you'll impress yourself one day.

Unless you are the sort of person who thinks that brothels can be made to un-exist, it is hard to come up with a strong case for them being unregulated.   It is very hard to imagine that properly regulated and monitored brothels would employ trafficked workers.

1. I can certainly see the logic behind this. 

2. I don't see the need to organize prostitution into brothels. It's an inherently exploitative system that leaves large room for abuse. 

My ideal solution is to legalize escorts in a very small region or city of a nation. Initially I supported violent crackdown upon any escorts/sex services, but I realized people are imperfect. Legal escorts in a small part of a country would deter more dangerous illegal services and reduce the possibility of rape. 

Im against the idea of nation wide prostitution because of the probable brain-drain it would have on women/girls in the country.... There's already an attitude in the US of 'fuck it, I'll become a stripper' when things get tough that could cause someone pursuing a more 'noble' life profession to give up on it and go the easy route, upping the ante by having prostitution become an option would only magnify that brain-drain even larger. 

I don't think that idea makes much sense. It'd be like saying legalizing marijuana will increase smuggling it over the borders. Governments running prostitution will mean that sex traffickers won't have much of a market anymore. Girls being sold for sex illegally will be so incredibly rare when someone can pay for sex legally and not worry about going to prison for a hundred years. At the very most, sex trafficking will stay the same, but I can't see that happening.

Yes, totally. I've been in favour of this for as long as I can remember - it'll take the danger risk away from the girls as well as the johns, and it will generate a fuck of a lot of money for the country/state.

Maybe we can make it a mainstream part of life so it's not so frowned upon in a hundred years.  We could make schools, and certifications that the prostitutes can hang on their walls like barbers do.  Remember, prostitutes don't have to only be women.  If it is equal on both sides.... and it is legalized, it will just be another profession with real competition, and real price points depending on the service.  Capitalism at it's best.  There would be no need for pimps.

I don't see legalizing it increasing trafficking at all either.  That doesn't make much sense.

I feel bad for people that can't get any...... they should be able to pay for it and have release, maybe there would be less rapes in the country.  There may also be less desperate people out there, leading to more successful relationships.

Exactly, plus like you said with competition it will cause prices to drop for the sake of a competitive market, meaning we don't need to pay $300 for an hour anymore! It's a win for everybody haha

There would also be less people marrying just because their partner is great in bed.   Believe me... that does happen.