------------
One of the major problems I have with some of the ideas of
Libertarians is that they misunderstand inalienable rights and their
application in government and society. This has led to some incorrect views on
some major social issues such as recreational drugs, abortion, and
prostitution. I’ll be examining some of their claims in coming posts.
In this post, I’ll examine one of the claims of the
Libertarians: that prostitution (if voluntary) hurts no one and should be
legal. This claim is false on both fronts. Prostitution does in fact cause
harm, even when it is voluntary. It is also a violation of inalienable rights
and, since government’s highest purpose is the protection of inalienable
rights, it should be illegal.
First of all, prostitution violates the inalienable rights
of the prostitute. This is true even if the prostitute wants to be a prostitute
and wants the specific act with the specific person. As we saw in Part 1 and Part 2 of my
inalienable rights series, God, as our Creator, retains rights to us. Since we
are the work of His labor, we are not free to do whatever we want with our
bodies. A person’s inalienable rights cannot be given up, even by the person
himself, since they are really rights that God retains to His creation. For
example, we cannot rightfully kill ourselves or sell ourselves into slavery,
even if we wish to. Prostitution is, at its heart, a selling of the intimate
self. Such a thing is not permissible, nor should it be.
Prostitution also causes physical, emotional, and spiritual
harm to both parties involved. It is not a “victimless crime.” Physically,
there is great risk of transmitting sexually-transmitted diseases. Many people
who wish to legalize prostitution point to countries where it has been made
legal and where medical evaluation and treatment are available to lessen this
factor. While the precautions taken in these countries are better than nothing,
they can, at best, lessen the risk. They cannot take it away completely.
Emotionally, prostitution is also harmful to both parties. To
claim otherwise shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of sex.
Contrary to popular opinion, sex is not simply a physical act. Sex was designed
to be a complete merging of a man and a woman in marriage to become physically,
emotionally, and spiritually connected on the deepest level. The two become
one. Even when used outside the bounds of marriage, sex still connects people.
It has been described as “emotional superglue.” During sexual activities, the
hormone oxytocin is released from the pituitary gland at the base of the brain.
Oxytocin is often referred to as the “cuddle hormone” and it produces feelings
of love, satisfaction, and attachment. It is the same hormone released when a
mother cuddles and nurses her child that bonds them together. Regardless of
whether two people love each other or have a marriage commitment, the same
hormone is released when they engage in sexual activities together. In the
absence of a committed relationship, the hormone causes only mental and
emotional havoc. To have complete strangers engage in such an intimate activity
short circuits the way that sex and sexual relationships are designed to work.
It leaves people with a disconnect that hinders their ability to really love
and bond emotionally in a marriage relationship. It may also produce feelings
of guilt, worthlessness, and lack of self-esteem. Prostitution is especially
damaging to women, who are more emotionally vulnerable. In essence, prostitution
is simply rape that has been agreed to for a price and bears the same emotional
consequences.
Another thing to consider is that, if the john is married,
prostitution is also a violation of the conjugal rights of his wife. A husband
and wife have a covenantal relationship such that (among other things) they
have exclusive rights to each other’s sexual acts. Marriage is, by nature,
sexually exclusive. It is designed to be a merging of two selves to become one.
It is impossible to give yourself wholly to more than one person; each person
has only one self to give. In marriage, that self is given to the spouse. Married
couples no longer belong only to themselves, but belong equally to each other. Thus,
prostitution steals that which rightfully belongs only to the spouse. Prostitution
(of either spouse) violates the marriage relationship by attempting to give
part of the self (which belongs to the spouse) to another.
Since prostitution violates inalienable rights and in some
cases is a violation of conjugal rights, government should protect these rights
by making prostitution illegal. However, even if prostitution violated no one’s
rights, society has the right to decide that certain activities will not be
allowed as long as they are not thereby violating anyone’s inalienable rights
(as we saw in Part 3 of the inalienable rights series). The ability to be or
use a prostitute is not an inalienable right. At best, it would be an
individual liberty (although, as we saw above, it is actually a violation of
inalienable rights). Thus, banning prostitution does not violate any
inalienable rights. Prostitution has detrimental effects on society (such as
the breakup of marriages, the spreading of sexually-transmitted disease, and
the devaluation of women). A society is therefore justified in making such
activities illegal without having to prove that the activity directly violates
someone’s rights.
Thus we see that the arguments of those who wish to legalize prostitution are flawed. Prostitution does indeed cause harm to both the prostitute and those who use her and also brings harm to society. More importantly, however, prostitution violates the inalienable rights of the prostitute and the conjugal rights of any married participant’s spouse. All of these are good and sufficient reasons for making prostitution illegal.
The response of some Libertarians (like Ron Paul) to the
issue of prostitution is to “leave it to the states.” That’s the standard Libertarian
response to every issue on which they don’t want to take an actual stand. But this
is not the proper response. While many issues should be handled at the state
level, no government at any level has the right to allow inalienable rights to
be violated.
This is an extremely important point that Libertarians have
failed to distinguish. They think they are returning to the fundamental
concepts of the Founding Fathers, and in some cases they are, but in this case
they promote a view that is totally inconsistent with the principles on which
this country was founded. Inalienable rights are only inalienable if the person
cannot give them up under any circumstance. This is because God holds these
rights and has not granted them to mankind. Thus, as the Founding Fathers
understood this concept, inalienable rights imply that a person does not have the right to participate in certain
activities – those that violate anyone’s inalienable rights (even his own). Since
government’s most basic purpose is to protect inalienable rights, it is the
duty of all government – federal, state, and local – to make and enforce laws
that make violations of inalienable rights illegal. So if prostitution is a
violation of inalienable rights (and it is), then no state or federal
government has the right to legalize it.