This article may involve sensitive topics, please speak rationally.
Recently, there have been frequent controversial topics online, attracting considerable traffic, but posts are quickly deleted. If we truly want to achieve freedom of speech, decentralized platforms are imperative.
I recently came across the news about "OpenAI's CEO having children through surrogacy," which sparked many thoughts in my mind, leading to a heated online debate. This was prompted by a sudden insight regarding a new approach to addressing the dark sides of society, which I would like to share with you all!
Surrogacy: Is the path to legalization feasible?
In the comments section, there was already a heated argument, with some vehemently denouncing surrogacy as an act of "objectifying women," expressing strong words while defending women's rights, yet showing disdain for the desperate surrogate mothers. However, I believe that legalization may not necessarily be a bad thing. In reality, because surrogacy is illegal, those in need can only turn to the black market. What about the surrogate mothers? They often suffer physically and mentally, and financially they gain no benefits, enduring suffering for nothing. If surrogacy were legalized, with state regulation and the establishment of formal channels, surrogate mothers would have corresponding protections, and those black intermediaries would lose their ground. By cracking down heavily on illegal surrogacy, wouldn't this save people from dire situations?
But then I pondered, such matters must not be left to private handling; they must be monopolized by the state. Human nature seeks profit, and if private entities are involved, chaos is bound to ensue, which could be even more terrifying than the black market.
Prostitution, gambling, and drugs: Which is better, prohibition or regulation?
As the discussion continued, I suddenly realized that this logic might not only apply to surrogacy. Prostitution, gambling, and drugs—these "dark sides" of society have long been prohibited repeatedly, yet the black market remains rampant. During the Prohibition era in the U.S., gangs thrived, and the war on drugs lasted a long time, but the results were minimal. The demand is there; simply blocking it may not be as effective as attempting to guide it. For a time, I truly believed that "legalization + regulation" was a universal remedy, but upon further reflection, I felt it was not right. Acts like intentional harm must never be legalized; otherwise, wouldn't the world descend into chaos?
So I narrowed my focus, thinking that if transactions were "mutually voluntary, without coercion or harm," such as small-scale gambling or sex work, would legalization be more feasible? If the state regulates it, it could meet some people's needs while suppressing the black market, seemingly achieving two goals at once.
Three steps: Let the light shine and make the darkness visible
Later, I refined this idea into a "three-step" strategy:
First, legalization + regulation + nationalization. We should first manage those "low-risk demands," temporarily defining them as "controllable safe desires," like entertainment gambling and voluntary sex work. The state must take the lead, establish rules, and ensure fairness, never allowing private institutions to act recklessly and complicate this already sensitive issue.
Second, distinguish between gray and black areas. The gray area consists of reasonable voluntary transactions, for which we should open a legitimate path to operate within a legal framework; the black area involves extreme demands that harm oneself and others, for which we must be ruthless and never condone. Legalization acts like a sieve, clearly separating the two.
Third, strike hard against the black market. Once legitimate channels are established, the black market loses its justification for existence. For those who still choose to engage in the black market, penalties should be increased. Take sex work as an example: once legalized, there should be no issues with following formal channels; if one still resorts to the black market, they should face severe punishment. This way, we can protect reasonable demands while deterring wrongdoing.
What is the utility of this measure?
In the past, when sex work was illegal, those with reasonable needs cried out for justice: "I mean no harm, why should I be punished?" Meanwhile, those with extreme demands secretly laughed: "The cost is so low, what's there to fear?" As a result, the gray and black areas mixed together, making it difficult for the law to discern how to act. Now, with legalization, the gray area can come to light, and the black area will be exposed, making governance much more efficient.
What are the challenges?
Of course, things are not that simple. First, how should "light demands" be defined? To what extent does gambling count as reasonable? How can we prove "voluntariness" in sex work? Furthermore, the black market will certainly not disappear entirely; those with extreme demands may become even more secretive. There are also ethical issues; many people feel uncomfortable at the mere mention of "legalizing sex work," making implementation quite challenging.
Closing thoughts
My idea is simply this:
Through state-led legalization and regulation, acknowledging the existence of the "gray," allowing gray industries to enter the regulatory process, forcing a separation between gray and black, guiding controllable safe demands, while increasing penalties for the black market, we can better manage the gray and effectively combat the black. No longer should the world be strictly black and white; we must confront the darkness and combat evil, achieving more transparent and efficient social governance.
This is certainly not a perfect solution, but at least it is pragmatic. Do you think that not acknowledging the gray area is self-deception? Does regulating the gray area reduce risks and confronting the darkness contribute to stability? Feel free to leave a comment, and let's discuss together!