> laws are only as good as we have systems in place that are willing and ABLE to enforce them.
replyThe 'able' part is the critical insight. Laws are too often passed that really have no ability to be enforced, but end up adding bureaucratic processes that law abiding companies have to follow. This also implies that governments need to actively clean up existing laws, which almost never happens unless there is enough support to pass a new law to actively supplant the old one.
> because of the shame in admitting you fell for it.
replyI would argue that the reason has more to do with our utter inability to create common sense laws regarding anything "sex".
Which goes back to the shame thing, really. Few people are willing to stand up and advocate for common sense laws because they don’t want to be associated with anything regarding sex. Politicians, whom are not generally noted for being averse to hiring sex workers, sure as hell don’t want to be advocating for them for fear of losing elections.
reply> Politicians [...] don’t want to be advocating for them for fear of losing elections.
replyThis assumes that the politician plans and has a chance to become re-elected. If this is not the case, the arguments for not advocating for such laws become much less important for the respective politician.
A politician can rarely enact laws alone, and the above issues typically apply to enough politicians at a time to make having a quorum difficult.
replyIs there anywhere with one term limits for law makers with no staggered terms? If every member of a parliament is yoloing it, I'm not aure if things would be better or worse.
replyDon't you think it also comes down to "exploitation" and not shame alone?
reply