But my point was positioned a bit more general. The prostitute is bound to comply with the conditions of employment. Provide sex for the pay you receive or lose your job. Why could any other employer not stipulate the same conditions? Why could an employer not tell an employee to provide sex to some prospective client to secure a contract?
In a minarchist society, at least in a strong version of one, there would be no laws against prostitution or against sexual harassment that doesn't rise to at least borderline assault. You manager could make sex a condition of employment, but that does not equal societal acceptance of the practice, merely that you would not take money from, imprison, or otherwise use the force of government against it. (Just as adultery being legal, doesn't mean society accepts it.) Doing so would put the company at a disadvantage, but I suppose it would happen more often than it does now (but probably not a night and day thing, cultural norms and competitive pressures would still exist, also making something illegal doesn't prevent it from happening)
In a society more like what we have today, where we regulate a lot of things, and intervene against real or perceived injustices even if they don't involve initiation of force or fraud, than you could have a law against requiring sex to keep a job unless the person was hired as a prostitute. Or you could even outlaw "pimping", without outlawing prostitution, allowing only private contracting of sex work.
"(Or she could become an independent contractor and dump the manager.)?
Sounds easy but not realistic.
Fairly realistic for a prostitute, if the authorities can be relied on for protection. No so much from some other types of jobs.
I think we've already established that most prostitutes (90%) would like to get out of the 'business'
We haven't actually established it, I just didn't dispute it. It may be true.
Assuming it is I don't see how its relevant to my point. The independent contractor prostitute would still be "in the business".
And with it legalized, it might be easier to move from such a job to a normal job.
. Practically speaking this duck walks like 'sex slave trade.'
For some certainly, for many probably, for most maybe, but only in the context of it being a black market run by organized crime. Not so much if it was a fully legal job.
Not finding a way to make another job work, does not equal being a slave, it just means you find this job (as awful as many, probably most people who start doing it find it to be), is your best available alternative. If people do see it as the best available alternative, then if its illegal people will probably continue to do it absent draconian (and unusually effective) enforcement.
Its only slavery if either the "owner"/pimp/manager uses force to coerce the work, or if society and/or the government back up the person forcing the work and apply their own force if needed. "A horrible depressing job that I'd rather leave but can't find a decent job to replace", isn't slavery; and I submit when its illegal, its more likely to be "a horrible depressing job that I'd rather leave but can't find a decent job to replace" for the prostitute; or at least (if you think its almost certain to be horribly depressing anyway), its likely to be more horrible and more depressing in the context of the job being illegal. |
