1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Mises Economics Blog

Porn and the Law of Unintended Consequences

August 24, 2004 9:15 AM by Art Carden | Other posts by Art Carden | Comments (4)

So a California Law requiring condom use would mean safer working environments for porn stars, right?

Probably not. Four things will happen: some companies will go out of business, a lot of production will cross borders into Arizona and Nevada, some production will cross oceans to South America and Europe, and still more will move underground. The net effect on HIV infection will be a purely empirical matter, but we can say with certainty that the proposed legislation will probably make the industry more risky (and probably more depraved, on some margins), not less.

Comments (4)

  • Francisco Torres

  • The condom use law is just another feel-good bandaid-type, omnipresent interference from politicians. Even if p_orn stars are at risk of HIV infection, it goes without saying that just like any other business, the producers and stars themselves would find it in their best interests to keep the job environment as safe as possible so as to keep making a profit and keep costs down.

  • Published: August 24, 2004 10:42 AM

  • Ryan Taylor

  • Let us not forget about what the customer wants. The porn industry, like all others, must satisfy their customers. Do customers want to watch male performers with condoms or without? The answer is pretty clear. Condom use only accounts for 17.5% of adult movies. As Mr. Carden states, the condom use law will cause production to move to other states or countries. Those that stay in California will see their sales decline as customers buy condom-less movies from other producers.

  • Published: August 24, 2004 11:11 AM

  • David Heinrich

  • I've always thought that it's pretty funny that you can pay two people to have sex with eachother, if a camera is running; but if you pay two people to have sex with eachother, or if one person pays another to have sex, that's a crime. Typical idiocy.

    Mr. Carden has cleverly and briefly pointed out the flaws behind yet another slew of idiotic laws. Of course, mentioning a simple moral truism -- like the fact that it's wrong to coercively prevent consentual transactions between two individuals -- would fall on deaf ears to those in the corrupt State-apparatus.

  • Published: August 24, 2004 11:39 AM

  • Michael Thomas

  • It seems to me, that people are willing to use the government as some kind of union.
    Producers may want actors to use condoms, and that as long as other producers are making films without condoms, they will be at a disadvantage. So we can go to "big brother government" and use "common sense" to get a law passed where everyone has to use the condoms. This is much like the idea of smoking bans. I own a restaurant. I have to pay for damage done by smokers. I can't ban the smokers because at the margin, I will loose even more business by being a first mover. So I lobby the city council to ban it for everyone, so I can "play on a level field."

  • Published: August 26, 2004 9:58 AM