34 Comments

Why are all of my comments replies to random others... :?

Expand full comment

I also submit seat belt laws as an example. I have never once heard of someone getting injured because someone ELSE was not wearing their seat belt. Allowing people to break the norm and not wear their seat belt should be a matter of personal choice.

Of course, it gets more complicated in the day of modern socialization, where a deadbeat not wearing a seat belt can shirk emergency medical costs and create a high tax burden on others; but I would consider that cause to reform liability, not to mandate by law where individuals must place themselves in a cost-benefit judgment of comfort vs. safety. If it were really about economics and not disapproving via ban, there would be an option at the DMV to pay more for a sticker that tells police that I'm allowed to drive unbuckled.

Expand full comment

I think much of the stigmatization of prostitution, drugs, gambling and other activities comes from the logic that they can be addictive and energy sapping and in the long run they might affect one's ability to competently compete in the social race. In a sense they are all behaviors signaling one's inability to forgo immediate pleasures in exchange for longer term joys.

All of these activities can very quickly and insidiously become addictive. We humans are very fallible and if you think you are above it all, then you are clearly deluded. The possibility of a slippery slope is very real. In no other area have i seen or experienced so much irrationality and biased thinking as I have when it comes to humans and vices. The smart ones who are smug that they can control it are the ones that fall hard.

It is a society's responsibility then to warn you of the dangers in all possible ways. Any "prominent" vice in your life must be a neon sign saying that your life is imbalanced. I am not saying we should ban them all. I am saying that they are really dangerous and they can zap you. Avoidance is probably not a bad idea.

Expand full comment

Why people hate economists

This is what happens when the ideas evolved by certain professions become over run by outsiders who find the constructs found therein congenial to their worldview. I love economics myself, but what is talked about in the blogosphere seems always to focus on a small piece of the knowledge base .For example marginal utility really gets the spotlight. Another one is externalities. When I took economics they talked about elasticity. How come everybody seems to talk marginal utility but no one talks about elasticity? At one time everyone “ in the know” was a Marxist. or a Keynesian. Now they are or are not Keynesians.

Maybe it is like the way the trendy set took over psychology. Then all they could talk about was left brained vs. right brained. Then came multiple personalities existing outside of either lobe . Then faddish thinking moved on.

The general public does not have the capability or the interest to jump to conform to each new idea or theory, especially if it has no emotional punch . The only punch many of these theories have is they are incomprehensible and hence must be brilliant. Even Joe Six Pack perceives that they don’t wash.

Expand full comment

I don't think that Donna Hughes has ever supported a Swedish law. She always says that what she likes about Sweden is that they're actually trying to end prostitution (a claim I doubt). She always uses the clause "legally redefine prostitution as a form of violence against women," which rather fits "disapproving via bans."

Expand full comment

Rhode Island is a great example of how the anti-prostitution movement actually operates. You're quite right; Rhode Island would have been a great place to try Swedish-model legislation. Prostitution was going to be re-criminalized somehow--it was really only decriminalized by an accidental loophole in the law--so if there was an opportunity to try the Swedish model, Rhode Island was it.

Donna Hughes is the most influential of the radical anti-prostitution ideologues, and her influence was key in Rhode Island's re-criminalization. She could have pushed for Swedish-model legislation that left prostitutes uncriminalized. Instead she set up a group (Citizens Against Trafficking) that pushed for exactly the kind of anti-trafficking legislation that every other state has. And predictably, the result was that Rhode Island's new law was a typical, both-sides-criminalized prohibition of prostitution.

What possible reason could Hughes have for using her influence without making an effort to get Rhode Island to adopt the Swedish model? Did she believe that this move was the best for her own personal career aspirations? Does she just like seeing prostitutes as well as clients arrested? Or possibly, she knows that Swedish-model legislation would not, in fact, eliminate prostitution in the US. But Hughes and the rest of the antis derive great rhetorical benefit from claiming that the Swedish model would work in the US. Thus the Swedish model's true purpose (in the US) is better served if someone prevents the experiment, prevents us from seeing its failure close at hand. That's just one theory, but it is clear that Hughes is no friend to the interests of sex workers, whether voluntary or forced.

About the Wikipedia article, it's clear that the current legislation was passed in the late 90s. But I actually couldn't figure out what it's saying about the pre-1999 status quo. The relevant sentence is "In practice the law [regulating prostitution, passed in 1964] was used less and less,and was replaced in 1969 by the Social Services Act of 1980...." Eh? If the Social Services Act was passed in 1969, why is called it the Act of 198? And Wikipedia gives no information about what was actually in the Social Services Act. Perhaps I should be looking at a different part of the article, other than "History of prostitution legislation/Twentieth Century"? Anyway, I just checked my copy of "Sex and Reason" by Richard Posner, and as I had thought, it was written in 1992 and makes two references to how, at its time of writing, prostitution was not illegal in Sweden.

Expand full comment

Wouldn't it be awesome if people could try their grandiose social engineering schemes on a small scale instead of trying to convince the entire country that some proposed change will be to all of our net benefit?

Expand full comment

Every source I've ever seen (eg, wikipedia) says that prostitution was illegal in Sweden in the 90s.

If American anti-prostitution forces like the Swedish model, then, yes, they'd have trouble implementing it in most states, but they could have tried for Rhode Island, where prostitution was legal until last year. I don't know why it took them 6 (or maybe 11) years to ban it, but disagreement about which way to go is the reason.

Expand full comment

The idea of disapproving via bans does a great job of explaining the facts of which countries adopt the so-called Swedish model of prostitution. The Swedish model is the policy of criminalizing the buyer in a prostitution exchange, and not criminalizing the prostitute. The theory being that buyers are so responsible for the problems of prostitution that it's okay to criminalize them, while the same can't be said about the prostitutes. This model has been adopted in several north European countries (with Sweden the first, of course), and in every case, the country's status quo was that prostitution was legal but rare, and the evidence is unclear whether the ban really did make it rarer still.

The anti-prostitution activists in America are almost all supporters of the Swedish model. And although they wield much influence over government policy, they never change any state's law into a Swedish model that decriminalizes the prostitute's side. It always just gets translated into a tough-on-crime, keep-criminalizing-both-sides by the time it gets translated into actual policy. The anti-prostitution activists always see any decriminalize-both-sides proposal as being worse than the status quo of criminalize-both-sides, and a cynic would suspect that the American anti-prostitution movement doesn't care about making it so that prostitutes aren't criminalized; that they would rather put ten innocent prostitutes in jail than refrain from punishing one guilty client. But they do have an excuse: It is politically difficult to change from full, both-sides criminalization to the Swedish model. But why is it difficult? And why was it easy to make the change in Sweden?

In Sweden during the 90s, prostitution was legal, but most people believed it was wrong--so they did their part by not patronizing the sex industry, and therefore said industry was small. Since they believed it was wrong, they were easily persuaded to support a ban on prostitution. The actual designers of this ban were radical feminists who believed that all prostitutes are helpless, passive victims, and therefore the Swedish model makes just as much sense as punishing con artists but not making it a crime to fall for the scams of a con artist. So they came up with the Swedish model, and it became law in Sweden.

In a both-sides-criminalized country like the US or South Africa, changing to the Swedish model inevitably seems like softening the law's anti-prostitution stance by removing the penalties from a key participant in prostitution. Even though a number of people may believe that the Swedish model would reduce prostitution, and that this would be a good thing, they still can't get past the apparent--and probably actual!-- tendency to "send prostitutes the message" that being a prostitute is not going to be as hard now that it's not a crime to be a prostitute.

Sweden didn't have that obstacle, since the status quo was to have few or no prohibition laws against prostitution. Americans may behave as I have described on the level of governmental policy, but I also think that many Americans think as if they kinda believed in the Swedish model's view of prostitution, as well. On the other hand, Australia and New Zealand follow the decriminalization model, and Australians and New Zealanders tend to react to the Swedish model with the scorn it deserves: to think that a prostitute is trying to be a prostitute, and if we want to help her--and we should--the way to do it is to provide better options that replace the desperation of prostitution, rather than to persecute her customers.

Expand full comment

"Really? And there was me thinking I was railing against the liberal mainstream!"

It's a common mistake. But yes, this tendency to think that the customers are worse than the prostitutes comes from a tendency for the middle class to take blame for the lower classes' problems. The problems that make prostitution common and harmful in the lower classes arelower classes are things like drug addiction, lawless crime, and being more promiscuous than they can afford to be. But instead of blaming the lower-class roots of these problems, many people would rather blame a (perceived) middle-class group like the prostitution-customers (never mind that the customers, too, may usually be lower- rather than middle-class). In other words, PC middle-class guilt.

It can be hard to tell which opinions really are mainstream. The idea that "the prostitutes are worse people than the customers" may be the default point of view in many ways--in other words, the mainstream traditional view. But the mainstream also seems extremely sympathetic to the idea that the customers are worse: thus, I drew a distinction and realized that customers-are-worse may well be untraditional, but it is most certainly not unfashionable. Finally, the "liberal mainstream" is the good liberalism, not the bad liberalism of PC, and it may well be sympathetic toward the idea of not judging or criminalizing either the customer or the prostitute. "Prostitutes are worse" or, for that matter, "both are equally bad" are pretty clearly examples of the conservative mainstream, while the liberal mainstream sees no reason to hate either party. (For again, "prostitutes are worse than customers" may well be based on a simple bias like "women are worse than men." Surely that's not the "liberal" mainstream!)

"If you can afford to pay for sex, you can afford the time and energy it takes to work on being more attractive to the opposite sex. Paying for it is just treating the symptoms of your problem."

Well, part of my problem is that I don't even truly understand how to frame my problem in terms of being "attractive," as against figuring out how to break through the wall of unavailability, the obstacle most simply expressed by saying that so many of the girls I meet already have boyfriends. For if that is the problem--and I think it is--how is "being more attractive" the solution? Is it realistic and ethically pure to strive to be so attractive that they will break up with their current boyfriends for me?

So the thinking is that prostitution completely eliminates the wall of unavailability as it normally operates; that mutual liking is not at all a sufficient condition for a relationship when one party already has a boyfriend--but that this "boyfriend obstacle" can be eliminated through a different set of rules like those of prostitution. And sure, prostitution can often be just a way of treating the symptom. So is aspirin.

"Me, I never get laid, but to be quite honest I've got better things to be concerned with than the desires of my wee man."

Sure, that is a part of my problem as well: Not having better things to be concerned with. Really, if I had never met any prostitutes, my life would have been more boring and lonely and I would probably never get around to finding a hooker--unless of course it were easy, and it were as easy to find a brothel as to find a Hooters restaurant. The idea that the hood is some kind of exciting place, more interesting than normal life, is a large part of prostitution's appeal for me.

But I'm happy for you, that you've got better things to be concerned with.

Expand full comment

People in the US haven't had free association for a long time---at least the 1960s prior to the civil rights acts. If they had free association, they'd likely feel less inclined to use the sledgehammer of the law to express their disapproval when they could simply say things like 'We don't serve your kind around here' or 'Fill in the blanks need not apply' without facing any sort of legal jeopardy. I'd hypothesize that the massive proliferation of laws and regulations since the 60's has the loss of free association as one of its main drivers.Remember, most things are at their bottom related to the battle for social status and the zero and negative sum goodies that society has to offer. Somebody HAS to be on the back of the bus, practically by definition (and we'll redefine the back as the worst seats anyone is actually using if you get cute and make the back of the bus unusuable or unused). If we can't use free association/disassociation to do it, we'll use laws instead. Why do you think SF passed their 'unhappy meal' proposition? It's not really about health or anything, it's about giving the middle finger to groups they don't like.

Expand full comment

society doesn’t have a reason to deter prostitutionIf you regard this as axiomatic, then of course you have a problem with a ban on prostitution. But by saying this, you are taking a moral position, that prostitution is not immoral. If you take a moral position and refuse to justify it, you are not really arguing in good faith.

no slippery slope has been demonstrated here. To the contrary, I imagine prostitution will continue to have considerable stigma associated with it, because that’s how people are.This is what people said in the 1920s when divorce laws were being liberalised. "Divorce will continue to have considerable stigma associated with it, because that's how people are." Didn't work out that way. We can easily see a similar slippery slope with prostitution, where prostitution becoming more widespread makes it more acceptable, which makes it more widespread, and so on. Something similar is happening with pornography, too.

Besides, if these points are so "easily dealt with," why haven't you persuaded a majority to legalise prostitution? Shouldn't that make you think that you're overrating the strength of your own argument (note the name of this website). I guess you can claim that your opponents are actually motivated by secret arguments they do not disclose, but this is just obnoxious.

Expand full comment

at the end of the day i point-blank refuse to feel sorry for anyone who can afford to pay for sex. if you can afford to pay for sex you can afford the time and energy it takes to work on being more attractive to the opposite sex. paying for it is just treating the symptoms of your problem.

That's nice. But why should anyone else share your values? Remember one of the fundamental cornerstones of economics is that not everyone wants the same thing or values things the same way. Sure, I can afford the time and energy to be more attractive to the appropriate sex. But I don't highly value that attractiveness. My time and energy is better spent elsewhere (IMHO). If I really want sex under these circumstances, then paying for it is a reasonable alternative.

Expand full comment

1) That there would be less of a deterrence against prostitution2) A legal sex industry would presumably be much bigger and might threaten public decency3) A cascading effect which harms public morality and family values on a wider scale

These points are easily dealt with by noting that 1) society doesn't have a reason to deter prostitution, that 2) public indecency can be punished by revoking licenses, fines, and other stuff that is already known to work, and 3) no slippery slope has been demonstrated here. To the contrary, I imagine prostitution will continue to have considerable stigma associated with it, because that's how people are. Keep in mind that if I'm in a stable relationship, my partner is very likely to feel jealousy and other negative emotions, if they find out that I frequent a prostitute. This isn't likely to create a positive attitude about prostitutes in the general population.

Expand full comment

"The fashionability (yes, Andrew, your opinion is quite politically correct rather than a truly unpopular one) of this condemnation is probably in large part due to a lack of pity for the sex-starved"

really? and there was me thinking i was railing against the liberal mainstream!

wow, thanks for pointing out i'm being PC, i never would have known otherwise.

and so sorry for being unsympathetic to your plight, i guess seeing as i'm totally drowning in pussy i wouldn't know how it feels to be sex-starved would i? i'd say i haven't had an inkling of what you were talking about for most of the last 10 years! woop!

at the end of the day i point-blank refuse to feel sorry for anyone who can afford to pay for sex. if you can afford to pay for sex you can afford the time and energy it takes to work on being more attractive to the opposite sex. paying for it is just treating the symptoms of your problem.

me, i never get laid, but to be quite honest i've got more important things to be concerned about than the desires of my wee man

Expand full comment

"... why nobody like economists ..."

Vapidness like that is why I'm glad the academic blogosphere has arisen. How about some reasonable humiliy, Mr. Yglesias? Such as, "if this is what I have to say, perhaps I should simply direct the conversation towards smarter commenters?"

Although I think the best engagement with this is to look more broadly at the mechanics of total coordinations. " ... nobody likes ... " ... everybody likes ..." type situations, because I think it's an important and understudied social phenomenon that can probably yield insights under economic analysis.

Expand full comment