Victimless Crimes, Part 1: Prostitution

For the first in my series on victimless crimes, I will take a look at prostitution, the world's "oldest profession." Throughout most of the world it is an illegal occupation, with partisans on both sides of the issue arguing vehemently.

From my characterization of prostitution as a victimless crime, combined with my prior denunciation of victimless crimes, it should seem fairly obvious where I come down on this. Before beginning, however, I want to make sure that everyone is clear that I am referring to prostitution by willing individuals, rather than of a forced nature. Put simply, it should not be illegal to exchange sex for money. Any other actions that are already illegal would remain so, and be punishable, but the actual exchange would not be.

The issue in this question is autonomy and agency. There are two primary arguments against prostitution being a legal profession. The first and most historically relevant is claim is of a religious nature, holding that prostitution should be illegal because it is sex outside of marriage, and that such action is inherently immoral and people should be protected from such sins. Such a reason in these times has not merit whatsoever. There is no uniform religion, nor can one religion impose its own morality upon others who choose not to abide by it. Society has no right to dictate that sex, another self-regarding (insofar as there are only willing participants, not that it's alone) action, is wrong. So thus laws to protect from it are wrong, running against the nature of a liberal society.

The second, and more relevant claim for the prohibition of prostitution is that as an institution it oppresses women, and that such an occupation is not suited for any individual, and should therefore not be a choice at all. This is where agency comes into play. For a choice to be closed off without any choice involved is to hold a paternalistic attitude whereby one thinks that they know best what everyone else should do. Such a prohibition denies to the individual the respect and agency that they are due in a liberal society. Liberalism is about freedom, and such a freedom must include the ability to choose a path of which others disapprove. Disapproval may be voiced, and attempts at persuasion may be used, but ultimately the choice must lie with the individual. As to the idea that it is an institution that oppresses women inherently, the answer is the same. So long as every individual enters into the profession of their own free will, then no one has a right to dissuade them. If the issue is perception, then once again no one has the right to project their will onto another for their own gain. Applying the Harm Principle, there is no direct harm, but only harm of ones own making, as one perceives it. That is not harm, and cannot be prohibited.

Even if one feels it to be abhorrent, there is no rational reason to disallow prostitution. All such justifications are either religious in nature or paternalistic and thus illiberal. Prostitution is merely the exchange of money for sex between two willing individuals. Who is harmed? No one, so there is nothing wrong with it. Thus, it should be legal and regulated.

Have a different opinion? Feel free to voice it in the comments section.