It's not the case that the only valid position is one that is perfectly generalizable. Supporting good or necessary things is better than supporting bad things, even if they share some functional similarities.
Sex workers not having access to reliable payment methods directly puts them in danger in real, quantifiable ways. The same is not true for letting white nationalists recruit teens or whatever other free speech/market economy intersection thing you can think of.
We are not philosopher-automatons and may, should, use our moral judgement about which things specifically are worth our support and which are not. A perfectly consistent framework here is impossible and probably undesirable in any case.
It's not that sex work is better than other things and should be endorsed because of that difference. It's that forcing sex workers out of the legitimate business process gets them killed and we have a duty to prevent that outcome.
Sex workers not having access to reliable payment methods directly puts them in danger in real, quantifiable ways. The same is not true for letting white nationalists recruit teens or whatever other free speech/market economy intersection thing you can think of.
We are not philosopher-automatons and may, should, use our moral judgement about which things specifically are worth our support and which are not. A perfectly consistent framework here is impossible and probably undesirable in any case.
It's not that sex work is better than other things and should be endorsed because of that difference. It's that forcing sex workers out of the legitimate business process gets them killed and we have a duty to prevent that outcome.