Yesterday my blog post (How Libertarians Approach Civil Liberty Issues) asked whether defending the rights of prostitutes (or others of similarly dubious social status -- e.g. drug addicts) was strategically wise. It is never valid to ignore or to be silent in the face of massive injustice such as inflicted on prostitutes by the legal system -- that is, by the State. But is it wise?

No one can loudly oppose every violation of rights in the world; libertarians have to prioritize their fights. It is often claimed that causes like a tax revolt have more mass appeal with less stigma and, so, they are more likely to succeed. By contrast, I argue that backing civil liberties is the best strategy with the best chance of success. Why?

IMO, the largest problem libertarianism confronts is the difficulty of convincing the average person that he or she is oppressed by government per se and the legal system is in-and-of-itself a travesty of justice. Many people will rail against this policy or that politician and cry out for reform but they do not see the institution of government as the enemy. Most taxpayers -- however much they detest high taxes -- do not consider taxation per se to be theft. Libertarianism must convince people that coercive government cannot be reformed but needs to be rejected outright. Otherwise, people will embrace government as a solution to their problems; they will seek to expand laws or make a change in staff rather than in the fundamental institution.

There is no similar problem with prostitutes. The prostitute is singled out for special persecution by government and law; she has no doubt that the system is rotten to the core and her enemy. When addressing prostitutes (as I have many times), I find that half my strategic work is done.