He agreed that I would publish his comment. Okay, here is his message, and I have added my own comments in blue (actually cyan):
Normally I wouldn't write you, but in your last article, you were not only writing about prostitution, but more vastly about the ideology of classical liberalism (modern libertarianism) which I adhere to. So, I want to clarify some points on that. [... I removed some parts relating to his private life in this area of the text - Donkey/Kris2]
You are right that libertarians defend sex work, i.e. sexworker rights. You are also right that people have the right to not like their work. Though I'd recommend everyone not liking his work to quit it ASAP and choose another one. But in the most cases, you don't like or dislike your job, but you rather like some aspects of it and you dislike some others and you have to decide for yourself if the positive aspects outweigh the negative ones. In my eyes, no job is only positive or only negative. In my opinion, all unwanted sex is rape and/or sexual assault/harassment. People should be protected against that. When a person sees no other options to take care of himself/herself and/or his/her loved ones, than to sell sexual services, sexual acts he/she would absolutely refuse in better circumstances, then this person is the victim of rape and/or sexual assault/harassment. Period. I have made this very clear to myself, and I'm not going to rape and sexually harass another person again, ever in my life! I will not visit a prostitute ever again. Furthermore, you assume it is easy for a person to find a new job with equal or better payment. The point is that many prostitutes don't easily find other work with better payment.
"That’s how they defend sexual assault in the workplace."
-Libertarians don't defend sexual assault, they are for laws against sexual assault. In the workplace or otherwise. Applied to everyone, including sexworkers. In New Zealand, a sexworker filed a complaint about her boss and she's won her case before courts. Any sane libertarian will be happy about this. Yes, but this is a case in which she clearly didn't consent to being sexually assaulted. People can be consensually raped and sexually harassed. This happens when a person has very limited options. In the worldview of libertarians, all consent is acceptable by definition. Libertarians don't look at contexts and social rules. Libertarians would find it completely acceptable when I would approach a random woman on the street and politely ask her to give me a blowjob. In the worldview of libertarians she could always say no. No harm done. And I could visit a slum inhabited by very poor people and ask a man if I could beat him up when I pay him some money. He could decide to agree to my demands because he is out of food, and he desperately needs to feed his children. According to libertarians it is perfectly fine when I beat him up when he consents to be beaten up. In my opinion, he is still the victim of violence. This man could notice there is a market for men who want to beat people up and who want to pay money for it, and he could decide that he wants to make a living out of it. This man is still a victim of violence. Likewise, a prostitute is still the victim of rape, even when she consented to being raped.
"Libertarians place consent above human dignity."
-Human dignity means you are treated like you are a human being. A human being is above all an free, autonomous being and a moral agent and should be treated like one. I can't think of anything more indigneous than threating a human being like his agency or consent wouldn't matter. Yes, but this is exactly the point because libertarians place agency/consent above human dignity. If a person consents, whatever this person consents to is acceptable by definition, according to libertarians. According to libertarians the human dignity of a person is respected as long as this person consents to something.
"a dangerous workplace where this person is badly treated, deserves every abuse, according to libertarians"
-Bullshit. No one deserves abuse. Wherever he or she works. The worker has consented to work in X, not to abuse. Yes, but what if a person consents to abuse because he desperately needs money to feed his children?
"There are even libertarians who defend domestic violence as a legitimate lifestyle!"
-Surely not. I'd be very interested to be shown examples of such scum. Where did you meet such "libertarians" ?` In any case, any sane libertarian is for laws against domestic violence. I referred to Fleurtje van Schaik alias Zondares (at least, I strongly suspect she is Zondares).
"Libertarians believe people should have the right to make mistakes."
-Sure. I agree with that. Everyone makes mistakes in his life, that's just fucking human and you learn from it. So, in the libertarian worldview a person has the right to work in a dangerous brothel/factory, suffer all kinds of assaults, and he/she just made a mistake, and he/she has every right to make this mistake. It is victim blaming. Prostitutes are blamed for the rapes and sexual harassment they suffer. They have the right to make mistakes! At least, according to libertarians.
"Therefore, when a person is tricked into doing something"
-No, we are in favour of laws against fraud. No, according to libertarians people have the right to make mistakes, so a person has the right to be tricked into doing something. Above all, true libertarians want to abolish the state, no social security, no army, no police, no judicial system, no public utilities, no laws against fraud.
"Libertarians want to abolish social security and solidarity."
-Ok. Here, it becomes tricky for you. We don't want the state forcing people to pay for a state insurance or state retirement system. We want people to have the choice between different private insurances or pension systems. So, we are NOT against social security, but for the privatization/liberalization of social security. Because no size fits all. We need a choice of sizes.
As for solidarity, for libertarians, only voluntary solidarity is real solidarity.
So, we want people to help each other themselves, not having the state forcing them to help.
If A helps B voluntarily [removed some private parts here], that's rightly called "solidarity". But if the state takes my tax money and gives it to person X, this is not real solidarity, by no means of the word. Sorry, if that offends you as a socialdemocrat, but this is the libertarian view. But you claim, we are against all those things, just because we don't want the state to provide them. The state is Robin Hood! Steal from the rich, give to the poor. In real life, there are people who are disabled, too old to work, have no family and friends. Without state pensions and allowances for disabled people, there will be a big social class of extremely poor people. Some elderly people and disabled people would simply starve. But there is one positive thing for libertarians! There will be an ample supply of impoverished women who will willingly "consent" to just any sexual request, no matter how degrading.
"They also want to remove the age of consent, and all the laws protecting workers"
-I don't. I agree with age of consent-laws. But I am in favour of Romeo-and-Juliet-legislations to avoid that a let's say 19th year old boy is punished for having sex with a 17th year old girl. As for worker protection, I would analyze with rules make sense and which ones don't. This is not a matter of "all or nothing". It's a question of the given laws protect the worker's individual rights or not. Libertarians want to destroy the state. No police, no laws, no age of consent laws, no laws to protect workers, no laws to protect prostitutes. That's why you hear the term "rights, not rescue" from prostitution defenders all the time. They don't want to "rescue" people, i.e. they don't want public social security, no social safety net, no money for poor people, no money for unemployed people, no exit programs for prostitutes, and they want to give people the right to be tortured and raped!
"They also want to abolish the prohibition of child labour."
-Child labour is not completely forbidden, even in Europe (just think of the movie industry to give just one example.) Many families wouldn't survive without child labour, if one likes it or not. My idea would be, to regulate it, by imposing maximum hours of work and security regulations as enforcing education rights as well (at least X hours of school for child workers etc.) With the aim of getting rid of child labour with the time due to more welfare for the concerned families. This is not hypocrite, but just acknowledging facts. In the West, child labour didn't disappear because of laws either, but because the welfare made child labour not necessary anymore. Again, libertarians are against the state. No police, no laws, no laws against child labour. You are not a true libertarian. You are more like a small government conservative, or a minarchist.
"The pro-prostitution movement is a hate movement. They say that we should listen to the sex workers, but they themselves only listen to those sex workers who support their own callous libertarian views. Prostitutes who point out abuse by clients and pimps in the sex industry are vilified and slandered."
-Also wrong. I endorse those people filing complaints against their abusers (of course, this only functions in a system where sex work is fully decriminalized). And once they've done this, the courts judge their case. If they win the case, the abuser has to be harshly punished. As a client myself, I am absolutely against ANY form of abuse by clients. Of course, if those people argue for prohibition or abolition, I cannot endorse those views, even if I say, that they have the right to tell us their ideas. Yes, but you use consent to determine if a person is abused. People consent to undergoing very degrading acts out of pure desperation. By the way, I have seen on twitter how prostitution defenders attack prostitutes who revealed abuses within the sex industry. It is like the Japanese proverb: The nail that sticks out shall be hammered down. One prostitute didn't want to have anything to do with what she called the 'pro-prostitution movement', although she wasn't against prostitution herself. In the past she was forced into prostitution by a man. She was vilified in a very awful way by prostitution defenders on the internet. Prostitution defenders are very dogmatic. There is a general denial of any kind of abuse in the sex industry, except when government operatives are the perpetrators (like the police, the tax department, public servants). Within the pro-prostitution movement, forced prostitution is called an 'abolitionist myth'.