Do you not think that that rather abuses and devalues the women? And the men actually now that I think about it.
Openly consigning a whole collection of your population to being essentially disposable doesn't seem the healthiest of ways to deal with a sex drive. Sure not every man can marry, but doesn't mean that they cannot be productive members of the state; and while being a sex worker is distasteful; it doesn't render the women worthless as people. If the state had fulfilled it's function these women would have gone on to have healthy and productive lives. If they are defective then do you not think that the state has the duty to look after them even if they are engaging in sex work, and if the states systems are defective do you not think that these women are owed protection for the states failure?
There are a number of Christian charities that help women get out of prostitution. Probably a number of secular ones too, though I'm less familiar with those.
The hierarchy of responsibility for helping people in hard circumstances goes something like this:
1. First, yourself. If you find a hardship, you do what you can to overcome it.
2. Your family. Siblings, parents, spouse, even children if they're old enough, should be helping you deal with the hardship.
3. Your friends. Sometimes friends can functionally be family, either way they should help you in hardship.
4. The community you are a part of. Ideally this would be your church, but it could be a hobby group, your coworkers in some rare occassions, etc.
5. Unrelated people who have chosen to actively look for those in need of help, and help them.
The state should not be involved on a systemic level, because the state uses force of arms to take money from citizens to do what it does. And once you've set a precedent of taking from one group to give to another, and the benefactors get to vote, you're in a system with profoundly perverse incentives.
I can see some edge cases. If I were a sheriff running a jail, I'd be fine with letting homeless people sleep in the lobby of the office, or empty cells in the county jail, if they genuinely lacked anywhere else to stay. The ability to do so would be dependent on them not wrecking the place though. I could see similar if I had a position of authority in running a courthouse, city hall, etc. But that's making good use of resources that already exist, not appropriating new ones for that purpose.
We have to decide what we value more.
Women’s dignity or a man’s primal urges.
The one we choose to ignore-which has a worse effect on the health of society as a whole?
These statements are somewhat ambiguous, and could have some profoundly negative meanings. I'd like you to clarify just what you mean here.
Because pornography is addictive, and has adverse effects on the brain and sexual habits. Prostitution is just like regular old promiscuity, just with money attached. It's far less dangerous than people training their brains and endocrine system to become used to a socially flattened simulacrum of real sex.
Both are destructive, and both can be addictive. There are few who pay for prostitution, who do not also make use of porn. There are far more who use porn who don't pay for prostitution.
Both have a host of negative consequences, many of them overlapping. I would very much say that prostitution is worse though, because it inherently directly harms two people, instead of one.
In general, what this means is that libertarian morality is heavily focused on individual rights. It is a basic thing on which additional morality can be attached, as well. For example, a Christian libertarian would personally obey what they felt Christ Commands were, but might vote for things like gay marriage, even though it is sinful, because it is also wrong for the government to stop people from marrying.
American Conservatism is inextricably intertwined with Libertarianism. American Conservatives are political libertarians, but socially less so.
And no, a Christian Libertarian would not vote for gay marriage. They'd vote for the government to have no involvement with marriage in the first place; voting
for gay marriage would be to approve of a sinful practice.
It's similar to how the cake shop would sell homosexuals cakes, but they wouldn't sell them a
wedding cake. That was a very fine example of Christian-based American Conservative principles in action.