Why is the word ‘prostitute’ or its synonyms used in a derogatory way? This question attracts arguments fortifying certain notions and beliefs. They consider sex, however consensual it may be, with more than one person to be immoral for both men and women. They consider exploring one’s own sexuality immoral for women. And they lay down a set of rules for limiting a woman’s behavior in public to a lesser expanse than that done for a man, threatening uncivil behavior with her as the moral verdict for refraining from abiding by the rules. These are only highlights nurtured inside the fortified notions and beliefs.

Philosophers have long been spending their lives trying to gain enlightenment about what is moral, what is good, how God wants the world to be and answers to many other similar questions. And most of the philosophers have come to conclusions that are much, much more agreeable to a civilized man, than are the fortified beliefs that are inaccurate jumbled up interpretations of thoughts of mortals wrongly considered higher than the rest.

Thus, we must know the conclusions the philosophers came to.

Nietzsche, of however unusual opinion about women he may have been (also died a bachelor), put forth arguments that are about basic morals in life that have the potential to triumph over the unacceptable values that cloud natural human desires. He expressed, that commitment to any particular faith or belief or being traditionally inclined prevents the development of the natural strengths of humanity. Only perverse tenacity and cowardice encourages clinging on to those fortified beliefs and values.

Therefore, it is necessary, to accept human behavior that does not involve violence or harm to others, that we must first do away with all that tends to govern us by preaching and accept that which teaches us by making us think. And derogatory use of the word “prostitute” is an obvious outcome of the former. Arguments for the derogatory use of the word is also an outcome of preachings that forcibly govern us.

Down the generations, certain beliefs and norms have been shoved down man’s system because these beliefs were once thought to be of prime importance in a person’s life. However, since nothing is more precious than individuality to an individual, and the shoved down beliefs inevitably interfere with one’s individuality it must be quite comprehendible that holding one back, discouraging one or disrespecting one for a harmless action, however unorthodox it may be, is an attempt to the murder of one’s individual spirit. Such an act, therefore, becomes highly condemnable and undeserving of existence in civil society.

Mistaken assumptions about the bounded rationality and integrity of humans is the topmost reason why communism perished (or is on the wane)
Libertarians shouldnt fall into the same trap. A market - a requisite for market forces - requires a stable rule of law; respect for property, respect for reputation, respect for other such rights. We cannot libertarianize that away - it would be fallacious.

In any liberal democracy, proving libel is so difficult that people rarely bother to sue. I can get away with saying anything if you say that “I have unconfirmed rumours that Yazad is…”
To prove libel, Yazad usually has to prove that I knew that the statement was false when I was making it. (It is not enough to demonstrate that I *should have* known that it is false, or even that I did not bother to check if the statement was false or not.)

I wouldn’t want it any other way, but that naturally raises the question of why have that law at all. As long as the law is narrowly defined, it doesn’t do much harm. But the problem with laws is that they tend to expand.

While I do agree with the fact that the cost of implementing the law soundly is a bit high, one can’t deny that such laws do act as a deterrent at least to some extent.

Yazad - You ask why people are so “gullible to take lies at face value” and cite libel laws as a reason. But, on a day to day basis, there has to be some trust in me for the news i read. Even a little misinformation can lead to pretty big damages. You cannot expect all people to be at their rational and scrutinizing best when reading news items (pepsi and pesticides). People are, and will be, gullible to news and reports that they see everywhere and will have a general tendency to believe it.

In other words, i think libel laws are needed as a general cover against such “wrongs” being commited.