Mitch,
I believe you said you had some technical issues including the text to which you are responding in your replies, or weren't . Assuming you choose to respond to this message, when responding please try following these steps and let us know if you experience any trouble:
(1) Copy this entire message by selecting the entire text (on a Mac it's APPLE-A to select, and APPLE-C to copy, and APPLE-V to paste; I think in Windows you substitute the ALT key for the APPLE key)
(2) Click "REPLY-ALL".
(3) In the new reply window that opens, paste the contents of this message.
(4) Either type your reply above the pasted reply, or find one or more spots within the text of the pasted reply where you'd like to respond, and using your mouse, position the cursor there and hit RETURN to create some line breaks, then type your response(s) into the created space (as I've done below).
(5) When you are finished, hit "SEND".
My responses are interspersed with your remarks below (leaving all of your original text as part of this message, so people can see the continuity of the conversation and judge for themselves whether or not I'm fairly responding to your points)...
John Bechtol writes: "You claim that criticisms of speech lead to suppression, even when there is no call for prohibition."
How ironic! John claims that my criticism of prostitution leads to prohibition - even though I've explicitly condemned such prohibition (among other reasons, because prohibition provides prostitutes and their advocates with a pretext for deflecting criticism). Seems like the pot's calling the kettle black here -- and then some!
Technically I must agree with you and Mike and Marcy on this, even though John's feelings emotionally resonate with me. You have condemned prohibition, and short of attempting to impose them by force, you have every right to your moral views. I think some of the tension may arise from a perception that you are more invested in arguing against prostitution itself than in arguing against its criminalization. That makes us uncomfortable, because when it comes to prostitution we see abolishing the injustices of criminalization as Priority #1, and that other concerns should take a back seat until that overriding moral wrong is addressed.
One reason why I believe repealing the unjust criminalization of an activity needs to take priority over a debate of its merits, is that when the actions of those on one side of a debate are criminalized, even having a level playing field on which to discuss the topic becomes difficult. Verifiable (non-anonymous) reviews in this profession are relatively rare in my experience. Many clients who might otherwise stand up to deny that prostitution is inherently a corruption of affection are silenced by criminalization.
John's disquiet (or disgust) with my critique is understandable: after all, it suggests that prostitution verges on being a form of fraud -- and fraud could be seen (even by libertarians) as subject to prohibition. This appears to be an especially slippery slope.
Yes, that is a perceptive insight -- thank you for attempting to see it from John's point of view.
Close, but no cigar! In fact, I've avoided arguing that prostitution is a form of fraud (in this forum, for that very reason), though it approaches being so.
I'm glad we're in agreement that prostitution isn't fraud. Your tone and perhaps even your actual words gave me the impression that you were claiming it is, but if that was not your intent then I welcome the clarification.
Instead, I would call it a form of corruption -- just as I consider paid speech to be corrupt speech, "voluntary trade" notwithstanding.
Do you consider physical attraction to also be a corruption of love? Something that may influence our feelings positively toward someone (or negatively, if they are seen as physically unattractive) even though it really shouldn't? A pretty face concealing a black heart?
"Voluntary trade"? I answer to a higher authority -- or more properly, as an anti-authoritarian (or non-authoritarian), I recognize a higher truth, one that's mutually recognizable (as distinct from merely negotiated).
How about this for a higher truth: Really caring for someone while simultaneously respecting and valuing their autonomy means wanting for them what they want for themselves so long as their wants do not violate the rights of others.
Should I insist that my clients give me money because they really want to help me out, and not just in order to win my physical affections? I think not. It is a no-win question for them, because if someone were to respond, "Yes, I really want to help you out, I really care about you, it isn't just about wanting to get you naked," then it would logically beg this question from me, "Well if you really care, then why don't you just give me the money and never mind about the rest?"
I don't let it bother me that they probably wouldn't be helping me out if it weren't for me getting naked, and I would suggest they not let it bother them that I probably wouldn't be getting naked if they weren't helping me out. This mutual recognition need not interfere with either person feeling love, affection, and caring in the moment.
An imperfect analogy: When you are watching a movie or reading a novel, do you think the entire time, "This is all fake"? If you do, then you are not allowing yourself to be immersed in the experience enough to fully enjoy it. On some level of course you can say it is fake, and on some level you can just as legitimately say it is real. It's a matter of perspective.
"Be here now."
– Ram Dass
Truth be told, I don't accept the "libertarian" privileging of Ownership (or negotiation) over empathy -- the (rather totalitarian) notion that Ownership must be seen and accepted by all as the fulcrum of the Self -- and the Self as merely the origin-point (or Subject) in Subject/Object power relationships.
What do you mean by calling the self "merely" the origin-point or subject? Isn't that like saying a person is "merely" the protagonist, "merely" the main character, "merely" the star of the show, etc.? In other words, isn't it rather oxymoronic?
I believe, conversely, that empathy is not merely the performance of a function, but that it is (or -- except in sociopaths -- is experienced as) a core attribute of the Self. I'm an individualist, but not an egoist: as a Buddhist (or a Jew-Bhu), I believe ego is the problem (a source of illusion and suffering -- to be eliminated, along with subject/object relationships), not the solution.
Ah! Then would you say that ego-influenced speech is corrupt speech just as money-influenced (paid) speech is? Too bad that the presence of ego is harder to detect and measure than the presence of money...
(For what it's worth, I reject all hierarchies and power-structures, whether they base their claim to legitimacy on Ownership, or on the State [or for that matter, even on some putatively-anarchistic non-state political mechanism.)
Isn't monogamy a form of hierarchy (putting one person before all others) and form of power structure (effectively acting to deny others the same level of access to a person)? Consider its language of people owning each other, and its monopolistic demands on the affection of a partner, which serve to exclude others as a property owner might exclude others from his/her property.
I suspect that this is an irreconcilable philosophical difference. I don't expect to resolve it here, but I want to clarify where I'm coming from.
I had a sense of where you are coming from with that, but the clarification may be useful for others here. As for irreconcilable, I don't know -- but it remains a complex subject. 
As one final illustration, tying all this together with corruption, etc...
Earlier, I wrote, "It's my fondest hope that I'll find myself -- better still, arm-in-arm with a lover -- walking off into the sunset, finally turning around and declaring [together]'?, 'We don't need your steenking boundaries!'"
Saying, in effect, "We're taking our marbles and leaving, see ya!" effectively puts up a new boundary.
Imagine that at that point, my lover turns to me and says, "I'm going back! That's all the affection you paid for; time's up."
Imagine that at that point, your lover turns to you and says, "Hang on just a moment. I like you, but I'd like to continue sexually interacting with some of these other folks too, and I also need to make a living. I realize you and I may have different preferences here, but mine are worth something to me. How much are yours worth to you? Let's sit down and discuss this."
"What? Wait a minute; I thought we were in this together! What about 'We don't need your steenking boundaries'?
"We are in this together -- you, me, and everyone else. Isn't that the meaning of elimination of ego and 'no steenking boundaries'?"
"You paid me to express that -- along with any implicit affection. That was then; this is now. What's mine is mine, and what's yours is (now) mine. Next time, read the fine print!"
Reading that, your lover might say with a wink, "Don't put those words in my mouth! After what I've put in your mouth, that is hardly a fair trade!"
Sworn to fun, loyal to none? So much for trust!
Loyalty =/= Monogamy. Trust =/= Monogamy. I aspire to be loyal to all who deserve it, and trusting of all who deserve it, to the extent that my own shortcomings will allow.
In the end, it comes down to good faith. Without it, look where we are now -- steenking boundaries and all.
The issues are anything but trivial. Whether beyond this point it's appropriate to discuss them in this particular forum may be quite another matter.
Good faith, yes! As the phrase "negotiating in good faith" (i.e. without fraud) makes clear, that is important from a libertarian standpoint.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
