There are many reason why prostitution is illegal.
Political correctness often swing in favor of the strong or status quo. Just ask the Cherokee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears
In many trades, the interests of consumers and sellers are less strong than the interests of disgruntled inferior competitors and “politically correctness” goes to the opposite than the “normal” direction.
Such samples are consuming products made in China, hiring illegal immigrant, and smuggling goods before globalization. Any welfare economic expert would agree that free trades is good for at least the buyers and sellers, if not society as a whole, and that’s the very reason why it’s prohibited.
It’s the same reason why the process of acuiring land through bloodshed, deceit, force, and war is called holy wars, by holy warriors, for holy land, while the process of buying land consensually and peacefully is called speculation, by lowly speculators, which is often illegal.
After all, those holy warriors are the one writing the holy books and not like the rest of us want to test their wrath.
It’s the same reason why books and teaching that motivate people to become terrorists and murderers, and books that bring war, poverty, and famine are called holy books while good books with far more evidence and math support just have normal status, or even considered heretical.
For that same reason, in a sense, prostitution is more “fair”, consensual, efficient, pareto optimal, satisfactory, and meritocratic than standard marriage and that’s the very reason why governments prohibit it while religions sanctify the latter.
Existance of better fair and explicit market free from fraud or force drive good people with good offers to those market, leaving only the worst of the worst in the bad market. The worst of the worst then want to eliminate the better market so they can get higher chance of a better deal despite their worse offers they can give in return.
The alternative to prostitution is marriage. Well marriage is different than prostitution.
Just look at the deals people read in marriage:
1. For better or worse – That is, we buy a cat in the bag. We don’t even know the quality of the deal, what we’re getting, and what we’re paying. Ask Tiger Wood or Beatty Chadwick.
2. Till death do us part – Long term contract rather than dividing it into smaller contracts. This turns repeated prisoner dillema games into one big prisoner dillema game. The latter always end up bad within a proper definition.
3. Forsake all others – Against the principle of competition. Without competition there is no intensive to perform.
And that’s just what we see. Most of the deal are hidden somewhere deep within marriage laws written by feminazis and religious bigots that sort of or at least may want things to go really wrong for rich smart males.
Let’s examine the cat in the bag aspect first.
Then look at what happen in insurance industry. Looks like we can find a simple analogy.
A market where we buy a cat in the bag is a fragile market.
“George Akerlof in The Market for Lemons notices that, in such a market, the average value of the commodity tends to go down, even for those of perfectly good quality. Because of information asymmetry, unscrupulous sellers can “spoof” items (like software or computer games) and defraud the buyer. As a result, many people not willing to risk getting ripped off will avoid certain types of purchases, or will not spend as much for a given item. It is even possible for the market to decay to the point of nonexistence.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry
Why the market is fragile?
“The potentially ‘adverse’ nature of this phenomenon can be illustrated by the link between smoking status and mortality. Non-smokers, on average, are more likely to live longer, while smokers, on average, are more likely to die younger. If insurers do not vary prices for life insurance according to smoking status, life insurance will be a better buy for smokers than for non-smokers. So smokers may be more likely to buy insurance, or may tend to buy larger amounts, than non-smokers. The average mortality of the combined policyholder group will be higher than the average mortality of the general population. From the insurer’s viewpoint, the higher mortality of the group which ‘selects’ to buy insurance is ‘adverse’. The insurer raises the price of insurance accordingly. As a consequence, non-smokers may be less likely to buy insurance (or may buy smaller amounts) than if they could buy at a lower price to reflect their lower risk. The reduction in insurance purchase by non-smokers is also ‘adverse’ from the insurer’s viewpoint, and perhaps also from a public policy viewpoint.
Furthermore, if there is a range of increasing risk categories in the population, the increase in the insurance price due to adverse selection may lead the lowest remaining risks to cancel or not renew their insurance. This leads to a further increase in price, and hence the lowest remaining risks cancel their insurance, leading to a further increase in price, and so on. Eventually this ‘adverse selection spiral’ might in theory lead to the collapse of the insurance market.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection
So a market where we buy cats in the bags is fragile.
Because those market will be filled by those offering the worst deals. So only those with the least bargaining position will go there. The average deals will keep going lower till eventually the market disappear.
Now let’s examine four market for mating.
1. Burqa market where all women wear burqa.
2. Normal marriage market, where we know how pretty and smart the girl is before marriage but then get stuck with her.
3. Women wearing less and less clothes or walk naked to attract mates.
Notice that we’re evolving from 2 to 3. Notice that freedom always follow the higher number while “holy” norms always favor the lower number.
If all are equally legal and politically correct, which one will disappear?
Which of the 4 has the most cat in the bag effect?
The first of course. The Burqa market. The more cat in the bag effect, the more fragile the market is. So when people can choose between the 4, people will choose to move to a more explicit market.
Do you see a lot of women wearing burqa in countries where they are NOT required to?
Now which of the 4 has the least cat in the bag effect?
The prostitution of course. We know what we’re getting, say hand job. We know what we’re paying, say $100. If we want to add 3 years to life time contract we can. If we want to add severance clauses, we can. In fact, people are doing it and call it cohabitation agreement. Once it gets popular, I bet government will do something to prohibits it, or find an excuse in refusing to enforce it.
In normal marriage, we don’t know what we’re getting, and we surely don’t know exactly how much we’ll be paying. Hell in normal marriage we don’t even know what sort of deal we are actually agreeing too and what the exit clauses are. You can search Beatty Chadwick to get a better picture though. http://freebeattychadwick.blogspot.com/
“So this is the skank who wants “her” half of the $2.5M that they are keeping him in prison for? While she is long married off to her adulterous lover. Whore and Lover living together waiting for their big payday, while the chump husband rots away in jail. The State of Pennsylvania a willing accomplice in their great plan. An innocent man whose only crime was to say “I do”. ” – http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/06/free-h-beatty-chadwick.html
If you want a marriage under “fair” terms then simply don’t. Marriage terms are simply unfair. And that’s very reason why it’s holy.
Now, what happens in insurance industry?
What happens is insurance company then find a way to find out the kind of deals they’re signing before giving insurance. Insurance companies, for example, usually ask you to perform some tests, including genetic tests, before deciding your rate.
This is kind of normal right? As buyers, we check the goods first before buying.
For the same reason, in “free” societies, people tend to move from Burqa market to Normal marriage market. People tend to pick the market where they know more about what they’re agreeing. If people can choose they will always go to the better more efficient and fair market where quality of the deals are more in the open.
The more you got to offer, the more likely you want customers to judge the quality of your offer so you can get better deals too in return.
The same way, the more proof you have on your point, the more you want people to examine it. That’s the way of science. To the opposite, the more you just want to trick others to screw themselves for your sake, the more you simply declare that your teaching is sacred, holy, beyond criticism, unquestionable, unexaminable, etc.
So if all are equally legal and politically correct, I bet, the prettiest girls will be in porn. Then, the ugliest of the ugly will wear burqa when they try to find a mate.
Of course no societies is absolutely free and that’s why we don’t move all the way to prostitution yet.
Then governments got involved.
Governments prohibits insurance companies from discriminating based on genetic tests results.
What does it mean?
It means people offering better deals wants to move to the more efficient market but governments prohibits that.
If all are legal and equally politically correct, those with good genes obviously want insurance companies to discriminate based on genetic qualities so he can get cheaper insurance. That left those with bad genes on the market without genetic discrimination, whose price will be higher.
That means if insurance companies can discriminate it will discriminate. Insurance companies then want to move to more efficient market.
However, if only those with good genes are in the non-discriminate market, than the rate for those market will be bad too. Those who got little to offer will of course get bad deals too. So what would those bad people do?
They demand government that everyone must join the bad market.
So government prohibits insurance company from discriminating based on genes effectively eliminating the better more efficient market.
For the same reason, government prohibit prostitution, to encourage everyone to join the normal marriage market.
Well, that’s just a partial analysis.
So if we want to know why government prohibits prostitution, we can check insurance market for it and see the analogy.
What about if we want to know why government prohibits consensual women trafficking? We already have laws against slavery, rape, and fraud. Most women trafficking are done by women knowing the deal beforehand anyway.
So, why would anyone wants to create another law against consensual women trafficking?
Why would anyone wants to convict those involved in women trafficking even on cases where no slavery, rape, or fraud is involved?
Well, why would anyone wants to prevent globalization? I bet we’ll find another simple analogy.