It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong - Andrew P. Napolitano [66]
Not exactly. Contemporary government in the United States has another model in mind. The government believes that it has the right to interfere with your free choices and to monitor what you eat, what you drink, who you sleep with, whether you can donate an organ, and whether you can take that experimental drug from Canada. It believes that it knows your body better than you do, and that it can take better care of your body than you can.
104
The World’s Oldest Profession
Imagine you are at a formal restaurant with your husband, wife, or significant other. You look around at all the classy, well-dressed clientele enjoying their dinners in the dining room. To the left of your table is a younger couple. Wearing a slinky “first-date” dress, the woman must be twenty-seven or twenty-eight. Her date, in his early thirties, is eyeing his beautiful dinner companion. To your right is an older couple. The man is distinguished looking with a full head of hair while the woman is conservatively dressed in a black dress.
To the outside observer, there are no substantial differences between these couples. All parties are enjoying a delicious dinner with pleasant company. All parties are consensually sitting at the restaurant with an individual of their choosing. All parties will pay their bills upon completion of dinner and head on their merry way. Except . . . there is one difference. The young man is paying for dinner in hopes of sexual activity, while the older man is paying for dinner and sexual activity. Prior to dinner, money exchanged hands from the distinguished gentleman to his conservatively dressed date.
Now, I know some of you may consider these claims extreme, but look at these men objectively. Is there really any distinction between the men’s motives that is the legitimate concern of the government? There are none whatsoever. Each man has the intention to sleep with the woman at his table. The young man is posturing as a refined suitor when, in fact, he has an ulterior motive; he paid for dinner with the anticipation of getting something in return. The older man, on the other hand, was transparent about his intentions from the very beginning by paying for the services rendered directly by his dinner companion. Why is one man’s behavior considered benign while the other’s is the object of government wrath and potential criminal prosecution? Their behavior is nearly identical, so which man’s intentions are more harmful?
The discreet and subtle nature of the young man’s desire for sex is potentially more harmful than the older gentleman’s transparent exchange of money for sex. Tom Knighton, a libertarian commentator, furthers this argument and posits that all men pay for sex in some way or another: “It may be three fancy dinners and a bouquet of flowers. It may be a trip to Hawaii. It may be a wedding ring. No matter the costs, these guys argue, men pay for it [sex] with something. There is probably some truth to that. And yet, this kind of practice is also perfectly legal.”1 Talk about inconsistency.
105
The Moral Case for Prostitution
Prohibitions on how we use our bodies violate our most basic rights as human beings. The government is not even giving you the option to participate in the restricted practice. In truly free societies, any type of prohibition must be void because it violates the fundamental liberties of all individuals who wish (or do not wish) to take part in that specific activity.
In the case of prostitution, as long as the transaction is voluntary, there is no justification for governmental intervention. While the government does have an interest in protecting the individual property rights of a person (the prostitute) from violence, rape, and other harms, the government does not have the right to prohibit prostitution outright. The theory is, “prostitution is the voluntary