Your "fiscal liberal" doesn't make that much sense. I suspect their claim would be towards regulating the business, making sure the workers have rights, can negotiate better conditions and ultimately resign if they wanted. Probably education would be pushed to be cheaper or free, programs to transition people out of it put in place, etc.
Maybe that's a French bias, but here we tend to consider that poor people usually have less job opportunities to choose between and that some prostitutes do this because they are out of option to make additional money.
"Have sex or starve" can be seen as a breach of consent.
Most prostitutes do not work out of a vocation or because they enjoy having sex with random people (though I guess on can find a few who do) but they do that for money. Some will think "that's so much easier and enjoyable than flipping burgers at the fastfood" and that's fine by me, but some others will think "that's the only way I can make enough money to feed my kids and pay our debts" and that's less ok.
> "Have sex or starve" can be seen as a breach of consent.
Most people in the developed world feel that "do X or starve" is not the right model and want their government to take care of that. This, however, is done via public assistance, not by tweaking rules for X1, X2, ..., Xn, ... ("have sex or starve" is wrong, but "clean toilets or starve" is OK, etc.).
"Clean toilets or starve" is, in fact, the model that one of the main sources of aid for the unemployed is built on. If you turn down a job without a damn good reason, you lose your unemployment aid. Very few people with any political power want to change that.
Exactly. The further to the left you go, the more people consider that employment is a tool of oppression. Of course not literal slavery but as a toned down version of the same logic.
In that case, whether you find prostitution as acceptable as regular job depend on whether you find (toned down) forced labor more acceptable than (toned down) rape.
Like I said, to solve the consent issue of work, I feel like the "fiscal liberal" would suggest something more in line with free education, universal health care, universal basic income, etc. I don't see why they'd propose to make it illegal.
While the name 'fiscal liberal' may be a poor name in an attempt to make it fit into a grid with the other 3 names, I have to say the concept of payment of wages being inherently coercive is one I've seen numerous times. Personally I have a hard time understanding it because it seems to be a double standard that isn't applied to any other type of work, but regardless of how I view the logical consistency I have to say it is a serious view that is held by a significant percentage of people I've encountered while discussing this matter.
