Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

thewalrus.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 511 posts

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#211

Post by a-user-you-like »

pjc50 wrote: post #186
a-user-you-like wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah, except that you get more of what you subsidize. Besides being immoral, it’s destructive to society.

My point is that the "war on drugs" approach is pretty ineffective while at the same time inflicting significant collateral damage. It already is underground, and it already is almost illegal in most jurisdictions. (Actually criminalizing the exchange of valuable consideration for sex hits the problem that things that look suspiciously like it are endemic in hetero dating and "giving money to your tinder date for a t…

No post body was provided.

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#213

Post by rendall »

josephcsible wrote: post #107

Why doesn't the argument "private companies can do whatever they want, so if you don't like being arbitrarily banned by the incumbents, then start your own bank and payment processor" apply here?

Banks work in a network of other banks. If you're the "sex worker bank" you yourself can get shut down

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#214

Post by throwing_away »

mellavora wrote: post #175
roenxi wrote: post #3

Crypto is an option here. Seems like a pretty good fit for what the sex workers need.

Wait-- you are saying that crypto is a good option to avoid financial regulations. the regulators might view that as criminal.

There's two things in play here:

* What the law allows

* What the payment processors allow

Some industries, like sex work and cannabis sales, can be both legal and rejected by payment processors.

The law says they're legal in some places, and local authorities agree. But payment processors still want to protect themselves and their investors, so they decline to do business with such industries.

The moral hazard in this case is not that crypto may be used to avoid regulations.

The hazard is that a handful of private companies serve as de facto regulator and enforcers for all commerce.

You can tell it's a hazard because some people view any alternative payment system as possibly illegal.

You may think crypto should be criminal, but cash should be legal, based on the average age of this forum. But the younger generation has only ever used cash for illegal transactions, and there should be no surprise that governments would prefer a cashless society.

If you believe that crypto, cash, gold, and any other non-banking solution for payment remittance is likely to be viewed as criminal by regulators, then I have to wonder who the regulators are really protecting.

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#215

Post by feet »

formerly_proven wrote: post #146
fknorangesite wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it almost forces sex workers onto the street or into brothels (which often take a huge chunk of each transaction) Exactly. It makes sex work more dangerous, not less.

Cake-eating-and-having exercise. To progressives: "See how progressive we are, not criminalizing sex work!" To conservatives: "See how conservative we are, endangering sex workers and making life hard for them!"

It's almost like conservatives only want to harm people who aren't like them. Weird

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#216

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

confidantlake wrote: post #121
hackeraccount wrote: post #56

There's a libertarian ethos that says anything between two consenting adults is the their business. I'm more and more skeptical not just of that principle but the self awareness of the people who purport to support it. I know that the choices I think are correct may not be - either for myself, for everyone or for any particular person. For that reason I don't think that anyone should run my life or that I should be t…

I think that is friends/family/social pressure is for. We don't forbid it, but people will look at you sideways if you drink beer at 9 am on a weekday.

Social pressure seems sufficient to produce most if not all of the problems described in the source article. Why are chargeback rates so high? Because the customer's spouse found out about the purchase and now they have to pretend it wasn't them. Why won't VCs invest in Onlyfans? Because it would be extremely embarrassing for a partner to attend a board meeting about all the great porn the company's producing.

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#217

Post by aliqot »

giantg2 wrote: post #205
Workaccount2 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sex isn't what makes people partners...

True. But given the practicalities it tends to be highly intertwined with a few exceptions.

> As for the pair-bonding thing, it reads like it came out of a bible pamphlet.

I just want you to know your reply with the bible pamphlet thing was really stupid.

To address you directly: It's scientifically proven, check out Oxytocin and see about the pair-bonding facilitation it does.

I'm not a dummy, but today you spoke to me like one. You won't always get someone to re-engage you, and that won't always be because you're right, sometimes we're just too disgusted to risk further entertaining your disrespect.

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#218

Post by dbingham »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #192
dbingham wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to point out that this is a natural consequence of a market system, and it's exacerbated by allowing capital to rule those markets. Until we recognize that, we're not going to be able to fix it. One can't just declare that "If only the market were truly free, it wouldn't be like this." We've seen this play out on the freest market that has ever existed (the early internet) and we ended up in the exact…

It's late stage capitalism. It's how all 'free markets' end up eventually. The biggest players gobbling up all of the competition and essentially having a monopoly. All you have to do is drive through middle america to see the Ruby Tuesday/Strip Mall-ification effect on most of the United States. I love capitalism when it's functioning it's the greatest system ever invented. When it's just a market full of monopolies…

I am of the opinion that the solution is Free Market Socialism: a market economy where the businesses are governed by their workers. Capital is allowed a reasonable, regulated return on its investment (which takes the form of loans, not equity) and further financing can happen through crowd funding (since this system would naturally result in a much more even distribution of capital, an order of magnitude more people will have spare money to contribute to projects that interest them).

Workers have a much weaker incentive to consolidate than investors do, since the consolidation results in them losing voice and power and there are no big cash payments in return (no equity financing means no big equity sales). So this system would tend to work against monopolization.

In addition, workers have much deeper connections to the communities impacted by their business's operations than investors do - they usually live in them. So the tendency to externalize costs on to communities will be much lower (not gone, just reduced), since the workers will experience those costs along with the rest of their communities.

Unions become completely unnecessary in this system. The people doing the work are governing the business, they get to set their own working conditions.

And you still get all of the benefits of the free market - no government control, competition, the freedom to start new enterprises - with many of the rough edges sanded off.

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#219

Post by BirAdam »

edmcnulty101 wrote: post #192
dbingham wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to point out that this is a natural consequence of a market system, and it's exacerbated by allowing capital to rule those markets. Until we recognize that, we're not going to be able to fix it. One can't just declare that "If only the market were truly free, it wouldn't be like this." We've seen this play out on the freest market that has ever existed (the early internet) and we ended up in the exact…

It's late stage capitalism. It's how all 'free markets' end up eventually. The biggest players gobbling up all of the competition and essentially having a monopoly. All you have to do is drive through middle america to see the Ruby Tuesday/Strip Mall-ification effect on most of the United States. I love capitalism when it's functioning it's the greatest system ever invented. When it's just a market full of monopolies…

So, I wouldn't consider this late stage capitalism. I would consider it late stage republic. The government eventually attacks large commercial interests, as a result those large commercial interests purchase politicians. Any large commercial interest who refuses to bribe politicians will get attacked, so all of the large players do so. They then get entrenched, get bigger, get more powerful. Eventually, the line between government and corporation disappears. I do not believe that there is a way around this situation in any majoritarian government. In the USA, by the time McKinley was running for office, there'd already been two campaign finance reforms. It would seem that purchasing power is what always does and always will happen in majoritarianism. If you do not have regulatory capture, a monopoly should be impossible because any large amount of money being made is a signal that more resources are needed in a given market segment. If, otoh, you have a large interest purchasing politicians they can now erect barriers to entry preventing effective competition. Once those barriers are in place, people begin to accept them as necessary, right, proper, and true. Only once things begin to fall apart do people even begin to recognize how absurd it is that a license is required for a child's lemonade stand.

Unfortunately, Utopia is impossible. All systems suck because all people are flawed. Socialism, capitalism, communism, fascism, monarchism; they're all bad. Additionally, they all really boil down to being either monarchy or oligarchy and every other term is just window dressing. You either vest power into a single person or a small elite group, and then people try to use magical words on pieces of paper to control those individuals. It works for a short time, and then it all starts to fall apart. Eventually, the ruling class realizes that the words on paper are just words and not magic, mos maiorum is lost and society starts to unravel. Modern governments have been better in the sense that it has taken a few hundred years for them all to become dangerous to their constituencies, but it is happening none the less.

Re: Why are sex workers forced to wear a financial scarlet letter?

#220

Post by ransom1538 »

josephcsible wrote: post #107

Why doesn't the argument "private companies can do whatever they want, so if you don't like being arbitrarily banned by the incumbents, then start your own bank and payment processor" apply here?

They did 20 years ago. Going strong: CCBill.com
Post reply on HN