New School Politics

If you're a first time visitor, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed, which will keep you up to date with all the latest New School Politics posts. Thanks for visiting!

With David Patterson being sworn in today as the first blind and black governor of New York, I thought I would back track and drop my two cents on the sex scandal that is responsible for his assumption of the office.

I am typically a believer that personal issues should remain just that even for politicians, and they should be judged on their political ideology and leadership even if they are a bit scummy. In Elliot Spitzer’s case however, the hypocrisy may have been just too stark to ignore. As governor, for instance, he signed a bill upping the penalty for patrons of prostitution, making it possible for johns to go to jail for up to a year.

The hypocrisy shouldn’t come as to much of a surprise for a politician as arrogant as Spitzer. It was not just prostitution where he sought to intrude on people’s private lives and dealings: it included was music advertisers, banks lending to the less wealthy, and individual companies like AIG as well. And yet, he thought he was above the laws that he created and enforced.

But while Spitzer’s sexual escapade was individually scummy, there was nothing fundamentally sinful about it the social sense. Spitzer and the prostitute’s actions did not harm anybody, they did not coerce anyone, nor violate anybody’s rights. The arrangements of their relationship were voluntary and mutual. Of course my reasoning brings into question the illegality of prostitution, but it deserves such examination despite popular opinion being for the ban.

I find the legal status of prostitution strange because while sex is legal when its free, it isn’t when it costs money. I can think of no other good or service on the market whose exchange is legal when it’s free, but illegal when there is a monetary fee attached. Moreover, prostitution could be made substantially more safe if it were legalized. By bringing the industry out into the light, there would be better checks on infected prostitutes and STDs.

Next, much of the defense of anti-prostitution laws I’ve been hearing in the past week’s relates to the exploitation of women. This invites a two-pronged response: first, it does not constitute exploitation when women chose to venture into the industry themselves–as is mostly the case. Second, when a prostitute is indeed exploited–coerced, harmed, etc.–who is she going to go to for help? The police? Not as long as prostitution is illegal. Because prostitution is illegal, all the “exploitation” remains in the dark, and the woman exploited remain unprotected. If the practice was legal however, these woman would have the same protection anyone else does, and thus would be substantially safer.

If people really wanted to demote exploitation of women, they would make prostitution legal, as a means of granting women who chose to engage in it equal protection under the law.

And that’s that single most important issue at hand amidst the ado about Elliot Spitzer.

Here is a column elaborating on the things I am talking about from the opinion pages of the Chicago Tribune.

Last 5 posts by Ryan

• Scarcity, Shmarcity - June 26th, 2008
• The Greatness of Southpaws - June 26th, 2008
• Step One: Open mouth... - June 23rd, 2008
• Sobering Statistics and Economic Commentary - June 11th, 2008
• Obama: Humbly setting out to save the world - June 8th, 2008

Popularity: 46% [?]

The Spitz or Swallows? by New School Politics, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.