Ill Considered Policies in Action

[ShadowHM]

Let me try to rephrase it.  A government might let someone work as a sex slave, but won't let them work 90 hours at a shoe factory for $.50 an hour, or 40 hours at an unsafe uranium mine for $1000 an hour.  Which is a worse working condition, and who makes that decision?  Obviously the government in question makes that decision, and I am merely voicing my disagreement with their opinion on the matter.

[right][snapback]66966[/snapback][/right]

Perhaps our issue is with definitions? I do not define a prostitute as a sex slave. I would define a prostitute as someone who sells sexual services for a fee. Slaves are not paid. Slaves do not get a choice in what they do.

It is inarguable that some prostitutes are, in fact, sex slaves. I would argue that the root cause of that is the fact that, since what they sell is illegal, they are beyond the safety nets that our government provides for other workers. They do not get the benefit of workplace safety legislation. I cannot see any problem in having prostitution legal so that sex workers can get that benefit too.

The original point I was making was that if someone chooses unemployment rather than undertake a legal job, then they should not expect to claim tax dollars in the form of unemployment benefits. Their reasons for doing so are irrelevant.