"I would have been constantly berating my parents for violating my human rights."

Tell me about it, I've got a teenage son.

R0bert

"But that is not an “exception”. It’s a total negation of what you just said. You ARE in favour of imprisoning people for prostitution and FOR NO REASON other than that it’s illegal regardless of the fact that it’s consensual and harming no-one."

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Maybe I should use caps. I have said I do NOT APPROVE of anyone being imprisoned for prostitution.

HOWEVER (read carefully) IF SOCIETY DEEMS IT ILLEGAL both parties should be liable under the law. Tell me why you think it is fair to prosecute one and not the other.

YOU are the one arguing that it is perfectly okay to arrest the woman without arresting the John.

Please don't snort anymore of what it is you are snorting if you cannot understand the written word.

Peter; You're supposing apurely physical definition of violence; But many people these days would accept a concept of 'emotional violence'. It's a concept that resonates with many peoples' experience. Lack of public health care - for instance - could also potentually cost someone their life.

Meanwhile Houellebecq laughs at the idea of homelessness or malnutrition comprising a form of violence. Then social exclusion (the reality of which can lead to suicide) is also thought a 'great laugh'. Well those who experience these don't find the experience in the least bit amusing.

Peter; You also question whether anyone should be 'forced into economic relations'. But in part that's my very point. The threat of destitution forces people into whatever kind of work they can find. And then they often cannot even collectively bargain because of a 'reserve army of labour', inadequate welfare, and effective labour conscription. Even if it's not the *state* that's *directly* forcing them - they are forced nonetheless. Also:'work for the dole' or similar labour market policies (forms of labour conscription)DO have the state *directly mandating* work - and for next to nothing.

There's been no response to my example of legal restriction of worker's right to withdraw their labour. Usually on the Right today we have this Austrian-school extreme which supposes the dismantling of the welfare state, of labour market regulation, of progressive tax - can go on until there's nothing left but the police, the army, the judiciary. All this in the name of 'liberty' and 'equilibrium'.(by comparison the old Right considered seriously ideas such as the *'social market'*)

But go on strike or stop work and they can fine you tens of thousands and maybe even put you in jail. With the Australian Building & Construction Commission there was not even a right to silence. So when all these mechanisms are laid bare what's revealed is organised violence to uphold the system and the class interests which govern it to a significant degree. Accepting the existence of such violence - 'invisible' for many - grates against our ideological assumptions - but it is real nonetheless)

Peter quotes me:

“Whatever the social relation, though, where innocent people are hurt we have to ask questions.”

then responds:

"True. Virtually everything else you say actively contradicts that."

My original point was that to ban prostitituion would drive it underground; and with a lack of clear and open oversight and scruitiny - people could end up being hurt. Including BOTH sex-workers and clients.

I think that point stands.

Tristan off topic however "But go on strike or stop work and they can fine you tens of thousands and maybe even put you in jail"

I've worked in the electricity industry in Qld since the late 70's including during the 85 dispute. Your mob play a lot nastier game when it comes to manipulating industrial law than Joh and the nat's ever did. In that era if you played fair you were treated fairly, under Labor it's been every trick in the book to make it near impossible for smaller unions to get a fair go for their members.

R0bert

Wiki stuff: Economics and gender inequity

In a study of money making in the legalized prostitution industry in the Australian state of Victoria, Sullivan (2005) noted prostitution businesses made revenues of $1,780 million Australian in 2004/5 and the sex industry is growing at a rate of 4.6% annually (a rate higher than GDP). In the state of Victoria, there are 3.1 million instances of buying sex per year as compared with a total male population of 1.3 million men.

In the state, women make up 90% of the labour force and earn, on average, $400–$500 per week, do not receive holiday or sick pay, and work on average four 10-hour shifts per week. In addition, with the overall growth in the industry since legalisation in the mid-1980s and increased competition between prostitution businesses, earnings have decreased. 20 years ago there were 3000 to 4000 women in prostitution as a whole, now there are 4500 women in the legal trade alone, with more in the illegal trade, estimated to be 4 to 5 times larger than the legal trade.

The sex industry is run by six large companies, which tend to control a wide array of prostitution operations, making self-employment very difficult. Brothels take 50% to 60% of the money paid by johns and fine prostituted women for refusing johns.

Between 1995 and 1998, the Prostitution Control Board, a state government body, collected $991,000 Australian in prostitution licensing fees. In addition, hoteliers, casinos, taxi drivers, clothing manufacturers and retailers, newspapers, and advertising agencies, to mention a few, profit from prostitution in the state. There is one prostitution business in Australia that is publicly traded on the Australian stock exchange.

Finally, gangs and other criminal elements make money in prostitution and often use their legal businesses to launder money from the illegal trade. The illegal trade is the focus of much trafficking and underage prostitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Australia

I don’t know if above or below ground matters Tristan.