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

Did you even read the comment? The only constraint he put on "government regulation" is that price controls and subsidies aren't allowed. That is a tiny subset of government regulation, and not equivalent to all possible government regulation.

Honestly, how long will it take people to realize that money and land are the two most distorting monopolies in the capitalist market that enforces the formation of monopolies in all other industries as only monopoly returns in the non monopoly sectors are able to get the "root" monopolists off your back? Companies often die not because of a lack of money but rather because of too much money and the resulting profitability expectations by the financial sector that cannot be met.

The solution to those problems is very easy. You implement a land value tax and a resource based tax to allocate both land and resources properly. Once you have that you can introduce negative interest rates based on at least a dozen theories you can pick your favourite one. Allowing negative interest rates defuses artificial profitability expectations and allows people and governments to pay off their debt.

The reason why a negative interest rate works is because money is a public institution and liquidity is a degree to how well accepted this public institution is. This means the owner of the money can sell this public service just like the owner of land can sell the convenient public services near his property as a perk. So the lender will always want to get paid interest for the public services the liquidity he holds onto provides and this then forces a profitability expectation on the borrower even of it is completely unreasonable during a recession for example.

In both cases the government is providing public services without asking for compensation, no wonder governments keep running out of money and fail to collect enough taxes, they massively subsidize the holders of land and money by not taxing them in proportion to how much they benefit from the government. These indirect subsidies can be sold for a profit which then effectively turns them into direct subsidies. Getting rid of subsidies is a type of regulation that is compatible with free markets. Meanwhile capitalism is inherently incompatible with free markets as it thrives on monopoly rents.

>I love capitalism when it's functioning it's the greatest system ever invented.

Capitalism is never functioning. It is inherently dysfunctional. The moment there is wealth and people should be happy, it breaks completely. It only "works" if the economy is growing or in other words, it only works if the economy has been recently destroyed by a war that justifies growth. What you might love is the market that capitalists eventually distort.

>When it's just a market full of monopolies it's akin to dysfunctional communism from a consumer choice perspective.

Capitalism is a monopoly based economic system. Getting rid of the monopolies gets rid of capitalism entirely and you are left with just a market based economy. I don't know what you are even talking about.

>I don't know what the solution is.

The solution is basically an liquidity theory (you could also consider it a trade theory of money) based approach that splits interest or as the Marxists call it "surplus value", into its individual parts and once you do so, you will realize that there is actually no room to compensate the owners of capital, only the owners of liquidity and liquidity is a public good, a service provided by the government and the public combined which then deserves to be taxed to bring costs and benefits in line.

Liquidity preference was Keynes greatest discovery and nobody gives a damn, not even the Communists, so what other option than perpetual inflation did he have?

I was genuinely interested in reading some arguments for that claim. (After all nowadays it's s trope that this or that thing corrupts society. Porn, money, capital, the Internet, music, 5G, drugs, sex, millennials, conservatives, radicals, atheists. And of course DnD.)

But I feel that this is more because the mother is the more 'revered' parent? People often hate their father, but it's far rarer for people to hate their mother. Cursing someone's mother is, to me, just a way to hurt someone by insulting the person they love the most.

This of course would imply the exact opposite of what you're suggesting.