...that there should be a legal place for sex work in society, than this is a no brainer. You empower sex workers by giving them a legal context within which to make their own choices concerning what is best for them in their lives. Plain and simple. Grown adult women should be trusted to take care of themselves and make their own decisions, and it is only arrogance and condescension which tells you otherwise.

Trafficking is one of those heavily laden words that is often thrown around for emotional impact without being adequately defined. However, trafficking as you appear to be defining it in your piece appears to be primarily an immigration issue, and not a sex issue. The root of the problem is people taking advantage of disempowered illegal immigrants. Sex work is just a conveniently underground and unregulated market within which to take advantage of them. As such, it should be addressed accordingly by the police. Busting sex workers for sex work is attacking the symptom and not the cause.

P.S.: "Indeed, to date, there have been no prosecutions of human traffickers in California."

America has gone through human trafficking scares before - in the 1800s it was called "white slavery" - which ultimately turned out to be largely bogus. Is there any objectively verifiable hard evidence that indicate that the current human trafficking scare that we are going through is more legitimate? I am not posing this question rhetorically. It is an important question that I don't know the answer to and that nobody seems to be addressing. The lack of prosecutions of traffickers in California is indicative of a lack of evidence of the prevalence of the problem. Does anyone have anything to say to counter that?

Prohibition involves treating prostitutes like criminals.

Legalizing involves treating prostitutes like children.

Only full decriminalization - allowing them to make their own decisions on their own terms about how to use their bodies as they see fit, and not requiring them to ask permission from anyone on any aspect of it - approaches prostitutes as full grown, capable adults.

"Legalization" and "Regulation" are words that people often use on this topic without defining what exactly they mean by them. I have been understanding these words, when used in connection with prostitution, and especially when used in contradistinction to "decriminalization," to mean a regulatory regime to be applied to prostitution that goes above and beyond the standard public safety and tax regulations applied to any other smoothie shop, Radio Shack, or freelance worker operating in this country. Is this what you have in mind? If so, this is what I object to. Nevada "legalized" prostitution in this way, and the result is (a) brothels have a government enforced monopoly on prostitution in the state, and (b) the brothels control just about every aspect of the prostitutes life for the duration of her stay there - and charge her a fee at every turn.

By "legalization" and "regulation," are you, in fact, referring to the standard regime of public safety and tax regulations that apply to all other businesses and free agents as well? If so, why even bring it up? Can we not take those regulations as a given?

"While it may be morally and legally and practically ok to sell your body or its services, I am far from sure that it is equally so to buy. If there is a bad actor here, it is the john, who is happy to subsidize drug addiction, violence, exploitation, and abuse, in order to get his rocks off."

I must say I disagree with you on this. If its OK to sell, then it must be OK to buy. Mutual consent is mutual consent, and if the consent is legitimate, its moral legitimacy must go both ways as well. You cannot accept the legitimacy of a woman's choice to sell her body while at the same time absolving her of responsibility for the possible consequences of that choice on her life and psyche. Freedom of choice must come with personal responsibility.

This impulse to accept the legitimacy of a choice while at the same time absolving one of responsibility for its effects and consequences is nothing short of hypocrisy. Unfortunately, it also seems to be one of the central unresolved tensions within feminism.

The difference between what you erroneously (in my opinion, at least) characterize as the first and second American republics is not technological or cultural. It is the 14th Amendment, which established both U.S. citizenship and individual rights.

The difference between what you, also erroneously (IMHO), characterize as the second and third republic is also a specific, concrete Constitutional one. It is the 16th Amendment, which empowered the Federal Government to tax income, and thus laid the foundation for the welfare state.

So far, I have seen no indication from Obama or anyone else that any radical Constitutional changes are on the horizon. And, without any specific, concrete changes to the constitution, how can we be said to be on the verge of a new, fourth "republic?"

Is there a current need for radical change to our Constitution?

One such change that I would support is an amendment that explicitly guarantees a privacy right. The specific wording that I have in mind would read as follows: "The right of the individual to privately make, and act upon, those decisions which solely or primarily afffect or pertain to the individual shall not be abridged."

Roe vs. Wade has gotten most of America used to, and quite in favor of, a Constitutional right to privacy. Yet the "implied" right that it is based on is shaky legal doctrine at best, and probably not tenable long term. However they choose to word it, I do believe that an explicit right to privacy is on the horizon, and will happen within our lifetimes. When it does, then we can talk about a "Fourth Republic." Until then, I think we're still stuck in the third.