No, John Stossel. We DON'T need to legalize prostitution

Sometimes even the greats are wrong on a certain issue. Stossel is wrong on this one.

I'll give John Stossel point for consistency. He always sticks to his libertarian principles even when he's dead wrong. His latest column makes the case for legalizing prostitution - or as he calls it "sex work." Because that makes it sound less offensive. (https://www.creators.com/read/john-stossel/11/17/legalize-sex-work) I understand why many people will agree with him. And certainly there are women who are doing this completely of their own free will and enjoying it. But they are a tiny minority.

If Stossel were here, I'd invite him to go along with me on the next "Unholy Bus Tour" arranged by Georgia's Public Service Commissioner Tim Echols. Echols has made a personal crusade out of exposing sex trafficking here in Georgia. The tour guide on these trips is my friend Kasey McClure, a former dancer who has founded the organization 4Sarah that works to help women out of the sex trade. You should hear the stories from the women who experienced it. How pornography and stripping are the gateways luring young women into the trade. How they become the victims of the traffickers. The abuse, drugs and abortions that follow. It's horrific.

But the biggest reason to oppose legal prostitution is that it actually causes MORE sex trafficking. Apparently, not that many women list "prostitute" on their career goals. The supply NOW can't keep up with the demand. Traffickers are targeting girls in middle school to feed the demand. A good percentage are brought across our border by coyotes who lured them to America with the promise of legitimate work and then are held prisoner. (Side note: the most common factor in young women falling victim to the sex traffickers is being sexually abused at a young age. Yet another reason to keep Roy Moore out of the Senate.)

And John Stossel thinks this is harmless? That we should have MORE of it?

Give me a break.

You just have to consider the source.

Ever since Ron Paul was in the spotlight, I've been saying two things about libertarians: (1) libertarians are like conservatives without morals; and (2) "libertarian" and "liberal" share the same root word for a reason. Libertarians tend to agree with conservative fiscal ideas, and small-government priorities; but they side with liberals on social issues, taking the liberal stance that "I can do whatever I want as long as I don't hurt anybody." Mr. Stossel has always fit these descriptions; that's no surprise. The surprise is that the two opposing viewpoints--one conservative, one liberal--exist together in the libertarian's mind with no feeling of conflict. That inconsistency is quite consistent.

And yet they still haven't been able to pick up double digit support. Which is strange when you think about how many people think a 3rd party that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal would be such a big success.

What liberals and libertarians fail to recognize or accept is that the social issues have direct correlation to the fiscal.