The Porn Bust
As always in history, the market provides the most efficient methods for both the sin and the redemption. There are many sure-fire methods for keeping porn off the computer, and every family with kids surely knows by now about the free service called K-9 web protection. If they do not, they should.
But for those who prefer the sin, pornography is everywhere. The great irony here is that many in that business don't like it this way. Despite all the money that's generated, more and more pornography is now available for free. FULL ARTICLE
Bookmark/Share
|
Comments (47)
Comments (47)
Barry Loberfeld
FROM "Requiem for the Left":
The equality of political liberty is the fundamental evil the Left opposes -- and the foremost evil the Left seeks to abolish. The feminists didn't legislate an end to rape, but an end to freedom of speech. What they achieved (especially in Canada) were laws that controlled speech in accordance with their dictates. And once they established this in connection to pornography, they then went on to declare that everything was "pornography," i.e., an agent of rape causation. (The title of that 1993 text? Transforming a Rape Culture.) ...
Leftists have a very real reason for wanting their moral status -- their moral superiority -- to be established in that way (as opposed to more conventional, "reactionary" ones). When challenged for any studies supporting the claim that feminist censorship would stop rape, Susan Brownmiller responded: "The statistics will come. We supply the ideology; it's for other people to come up with the statistics." All right, so let's move from the issue of women's safety to that of women's health, where feminist laetrile peddlers are claiming that their product will stop breast cancer. When pressed for any kind of proof, a representative releases this: "The statistics will come. We supply the ideology; it's for other people to come up with the statistics." Moving back to the original context, is Brownmiller's statement any less corrupt, any less contemptible?
When Viva magazine editor Patricia Bosworth made revisions in an article submitted by Andrea Dworkin, Dworkin "threw me to the ground and practically pinned me. She physically held me there and said, 'I won't let this run until the cuts are restored.' If you know how slight I am and how big she is, you can imagine my dilemma. We reached a compromise and the piece, which was about the horrors of Chinese footbinding, ran." The horror of a physical assault of a woman in the workplace, however, didn't prevent Dworkin from going on to provide the introduction to 1992's Sexual Harassment: Women Speak Out. ("The verbal assaults and some physical assault are endemic in the environment, a given, an apparently inevitable emanation of the male spirit.")
And in 1984, a 23-year-old woman in Minneapolis, then the epicenter of the anti-pornography campaign, took gasoline and immolated herself. When confronted with the news of this horrific and pointless tragedy, Catharine MacKinnon simply responded: "Women feel very desperate about the existence of pornography. This doesn't single her out. People make choices on how [to protest it]." Unbelievable. The feminist who cries for the nonexistent victims of "snuff films" (feminism's blood libel against men) can't even conjure a tear for a young woman who actually set herself on fire in the name of MacKinnon's own movement. The feminist who wants to hold others responsible for the violence they (allegedly) inspire gives absolutely no indication that she believes herself in any way responsible for inspiring this act of violence, much less that she should be held so legally. The feminist who propagates a dehumanizing lab-rat ideology of behavior, who denies that adults can make truly free decisions regarding their own lives (such as a young woman posing for a magazine), now tells us that people can "make choices" -- such as a young woman dousing herself with gasoline. Observe how MacKinnon doesn't even seem worried that -- or particularly bothered if -- other women might make similar "choices."
But as grotesque as all these things are, what's worst is how utterly they pale compared to the justifications the Left has given over the decades -- the eggs-omelet analogy and its many equivalents -- for the destruction of the lives and liberties of untold millions of common people by socialist kakistocracy. The "moral" impulse of the Left is (to borrow the poet's terms) the passionate intensity of the worst who think themselves the best.
Published: August 24, 2009 8:29 AM
2nd Amendment
I think that sexual pulse is an assault against the soul because it curbs one's own free will.
Pleasure is something that is willful and can be refused.
Try to refuse sexual gratification and see what happens. Sexual pulse takes off it's sweet mask and shows it's claws. Sexual pulse is a tyrant.
For me, sexual pulse is not libertarian. A true libertarian will refuse to be slave of anything that seeks to bend free will. Including sexual desire.
It is my view that it is nature's desire that we should desire sexual gratification.
I take my pleasure and pride at resisting this pulse.
If mankind had pride, it would refuse to obey this pulse. The sexual pulse is what is perpetuating mankind and all the horrors that accompany it.
So nature wants the Alpha males to reproduce, those who are the strongest. What good is it to have strong muscles if you don't have a strong will ?
Nature wants strong drones with no free will and no free tought.
Will power is more important than brawn power. In that sense Samson was a wimp because even though he had the biggest strength in the world, his strength was curbed by the charms of a woman and he eventually lost to the phillistines.
So, mothernature, you want males to be strong don't you ? Well I'm as strong as they get and I refuse to be your sexual slave.
I used to masturbate, but then I realized that this was cheating. And I now I find even greater gratification at refusing to bend my will to nature's will and pulses.
I am the strongest, nature can't impose it's will on me.
In the name of my soul ! CARPE ANIMA !
Published: August 24, 2009 8:52 AM
michalko
good sir - please leave the sexual pulse alone :-) goodness, it may not appeal to you - that's fine, but it cetainly can't be labelled not libertarian (while both parties consent)...
Published: August 24, 2009 9:07 AM
2nd Amendment
Michalko,
Although sex is pleasurable, it is not freedom.
Try this experiment : Try to refuse sexual gratification for two months and then tell me if it is a free choice. No sex, no masturbation, no stimulation.
You will soon realize that sex is mandatory like eating and breathing and that when you consent, you only consent with your partner. You can choose who you do it with buy you cannot choose not to do it.
Therefore, nature, biology, "God" is not a libertarian.
Published: August 24, 2009 9:14 AM
Tim Kern
"'You get something for free and you never want to pay for it,' Vivid's head man Steven Hirsch said..."
By his reasoning, then, married men (or women) would never engage mistresses or other sex workers.
I'm told that isn't always how the situation unfolds. Hey, I'm just saying...
Published: August 24, 2009 9:27 AM
Jeffrey Tucker
How great it would be if the comments here would stick to the content of the article -- I know this would be entirely unprecedented. Still, it seems like an experiment worth trying.
Published: August 24, 2009 9:31 AM
2nd Amendment
You are free to erase my comments Jeffrey.
Published: August 24, 2009 9:36 AM
LightBringer
Jeffrey: that would be against the nature of the internet :)
2A: Although I agree with you to a certain extent, we do not practice an ascetic ideology. Libertarianism, to borrow a phrase from JS Mill, constrains 'other-regarding actions', not private morality. That's kind of the whole point. If the desire really is a need, like eating and breathing, then surely denying it is would be as rational as denying these things. You may well be on to something though - there's a reason i'm installing this Blue Coat programme, not to put too fine a point on it :P
Published: August 24, 2009 9:56 AM
LightBringer
And i hope that was a typo in your last post xD
Published: August 24, 2009 10:00 AM
Agora
How about it guys. Let us satisfy our addictions to Mises.org and porn and create a new site with naked women reading papers on Austrian Economics.
After all Austrian Economics is economics for men as opposed to mainstream girly-man economics in which men are given a big Keynesian-Kredit card and told they must shop until they drop.
Published: August 24, 2009 10:06 AM
Russ
LightBringer wrote:
"2A: Although I agree with you to a certain extent, we do not practice an ascetic ideology. Libertarianism, to borrow a phrase from JS Mill, constrains 'other-regarding actions', not private morality."
Libertarianism is neither ascetic nor non-ascetic. It simply doesn't have anything to say about such things, because it's not a "life-style" philosophy, or even an ethical philosophy. It's just a political philosophy. It has room for both libertines and social conservatives.
"How about it guys. Let us satisfy our addictions to Mises.org and porn and create a new site with naked women reading papers on Austrian Economics."
As long as it's not naked economists. The very idea of HHH, Walter Block or Robert Murphy in their birthday suits gives me the chills. *brrrrrrr*
Published: August 24, 2009 10:17 AM
LightBringer
To take this even more off-topic, that's something I've never noticed before: Is Hans Hermann-Hoppe secretly a professional wrestler? Has he been living a double life for this long? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_H
Published: August 24, 2009 10:37 AM
Ralph
"It is not the business of the law — even if this were practically possible, which is, of course, most unlikely — to make anyone good or reverent or moral or clean or upright. This is for each individual to decide for himself."
Maybe so, but it IS the business of a community of people to decide what it will and won't allow within it's community and it has been so since the beginning of time.
I would like the government off of my back as much as anyone, and had you argued that porn laws should be local, I would have agreed with you. This little boy obsession some libertarians have with "anything goes" turns me off. What you are advocating is not free markets. You are advocating anarchy. As bad as the current system is, anarchy is worse.
I guess I'm not as Austrian as I thought.
Published: August 24, 2009 10:38 AM
Richie
Ralph,
He most likely is advocating anarchy, just not YOUR definition of it.
Published: August 24, 2009 10:51 AM
LightBringer
On the contrary, Austrian economic and political theory recognises that alternative lifestyles, such as those which involve the use of drugs and pornography, carry their own independent natural costs to the end user. If these costs, which include social stigma and addiction, are not enough to put people off from using them, then they should be allowed, but they could have trouble finding work or a place to live, without 'discrimination' laws in place to stymie this legitimate denial of service.
Thus, the overall effect would be akin to local laws on moral issues such as this, but much fairer and more efficient because the market is providing it. I would imagine that coke and hookers would be fair game in a place like Las Vegas, but not so much in suburbian Middle America.
The position you seem to be objecting to is the one that dirty-hippy leftie libertarian types cling to. Even the arch anarcho-capitalist, Hans Hermann-Hoppe, disregards this position in a footnote in one of his essays:
'A second motive for the open border enthusiasm among contemporary left-libertarians is their egalitarianism. They were initially drawn to libertarianism as juveniles because of its "antiauthoritarianism" (trust no authority) and seeming "tolerance," in particular toward "alternative" — non-bourgeois — lifestyles. As adults, they have been arrested in this phase of mental development. They express special "sensitivity" in every manner of discrimination and are not inhibited in using the power of the central state to impose non-discrimination or "civil rights" statutes on society. Consequently, by prohibiting other property owners from discrimination as they see fit, they are allowed to live at others' expense. They can indulge in their "alternative" lifestyle without having to pay the "normal" price for such conduct, i.e., discrimination and exclusion. To legitimize this course of action, they insist that one lifestyle is as good and acceptable as another. This leads first to multiculturalism, then to cultural relativism, and finally to "open borders."
Footnote 23, Natural Order, the State, and the Immigration Problem
Published: August 24, 2009 10:54 AM
Russ
Ralph wrote:
"Maybe so, but it IS the business of a community of people to decide what it will and won't allow within it's community and it has been so since the beginning of time."
I think that a community should be able to police what it allows in public. I don't relish the idea of having children being able to see, say, prostitutes hawking their wares on the sidewalks, any more than you probably do. But what goes on in private is another matter. If it's behind closed doors, and if it involves consenting adults, then it's not the community's business. If you don't want to see strippers or prostitutes, then don't go into the topless bar or brothel.
Published: August 24, 2009 11:05 AM
Toby
Russ: "If you don't want to see strippers or prostitutes, then don't go into the topless bar or brothel."
Ah, that was what I was doing wrong all the time!
Published: August 24, 2009 11:22 AM
mikey
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/109/304540935_d24163d183.jpg?v=0
Click for hard pore corn!
Published: August 24, 2009 11:23 AM
FarSide
2nd Amendment - I can't tell if you are serious or not. But I think so.
"Although sex is pleasurable, it is not freedom.
...
You will soon realize that sex is mandatory like eating and breathing and that when you consent, you only consent with your partner. You can choose who you do it with buy you cannot choose not to do it.
Therefore, nature, biology, "God" is not a libertarian."
This makes little sense to me. How can you label a natural process as "libertarian" or "non-libertarian"? I am a slave to gravity, therefore is physics non-libertarian? It is a bogus question.
Individuals can (or should be able to) make decisions about the details of how to engage in sexual activities. You apparently choose not to engage in any way. Whoopee, I don't care!
That is what's "libertarian" about it.
Published: August 24, 2009 12:38 PM
Michael A. Clem
Wow! An Adult Superstar, Jesse Jane, right here in my home state. Is that on-topic? ;-)
But seriously, if prostitution were legal, there'd be little reason for prostitutes to walk the streets, and less reason for children to see them. There would also be less of a connection with other illegal behaviors. The economics of porn can be quite interesting--I knew it was at the forefront of internet technology, but while I can see the copyright angle, it's just not as obvious to me.
Published: August 24, 2009 12:51 PM
Michael A. Clem
This little boy obsession some libertarians have with "anything goes" turns me off. What you are advocating is not free markets. You are advocating anarchy.
It's not "anything goes", it's anything goes as long as force or fraud is not initiated. Similarly, coercive authoritarian laws against same would not be very libertarian. However, the point you miss is one that should be obvious to conservative types. The majority of people don't have the right to prevent certain activities from occurring, except on their own property, but they certainly can choose to not associate with such people, to the degree that such activities are limited to certain areas, and not happening just anywhere. That's the power of civil society, peer pressure, and ostracism over political society, and it's not to be underestimated, least of all by conservatives. It's ironic that conservatives talk so much about tradition and civil society, but then want to pass laws that unintentionally undermine the power of civil society.
Published: August 24, 2009 1:02 PM
LightBringer
Pornography was also at the forefront of printing and photographic technology ;-)
Published: August 24, 2009 1:29 PM
HL
If all industries were as open to competition as Porn, then we'd all be that much wealthier in both real and nominal terms.
Published: August 24, 2009 1:42 PM
Russ
HL wrote:
"If all industries were as open to competition as Porn, then we'd all be that much wealthier in both real and nominal terms."
Oh, please. The people in the porn industry are not widely known as being the most ethical. I'm sure that if they could get governmental protection for their industry, they would welcome it with open arms, or legs, or whatever. That "protection" would give a whole new meaning to "safe sex".
Published: August 24, 2009 1:53 PM
EnEm
The main issue here is Legality vs. Morality. Let's focus on the following comments that bring up that ubiquitous notion so prevalent in our hedonistic society. And that is: "Lead me not to temptation; I can find it myself". Look at any self-degrading, burger munching, beer swilling jock with cargo pants at half-mast and tell me that he dislikes pornography and should rightly be defended by libertarians and free thinkers.
The question is: Should there be pornography at all? On that basis, I would like to further discuss the following comments in French's article:
"As always in history, the market provides the most efficient methods for both the sin and the redemption. There are many sure-fire methods for keeping porn off the computer, and every family with kids surely knows by now about the free service called K-9 web protection. If they do not, they should".
K-9 web protection is not redemption. It's a weapon to fight an industry generated by those who have dissected the mind from the body and consider the body's urges as something standalone and not within their control. They are willing to exist as bodies without minds, i.e. zombies. They tell themselves it's in their blood, it's their genes, it's grafted to the human DNA and they have to "clean their pipes" inside the bodies of females each weekend to satisfy that urge. Objectivism tells us that there can be no split between our values and our physical needs. If they want to clean their pipes then the most inoffensive way to do it is to drill a hole in the wall and go at it. Pornography has been pushed up to the state of a necessary evil and its here to stay. I do not hold that every individual should put aside everything and pick up Objectivism. Far from that. What I am proposing is that we stay true to our values because sex is not bad. In fact it's a celebration of love, the highest value. It's promiscuity, verbal, visual, written or physical that's bad.
"But for those who prefer the sin, pornography is everywhere. The great irony here is that many in that business don't like it this way. Despite all the money that's generated, more and more pornography is now available for free".
So what's eating them is the fact that they are failing to make the kind of money they expected off of a product that was made for the Majority for their greater good, mindless jocks thrown in for good measure! Therefore, pornography can only be seen as the minion of socialism and whose right to exist is being supported by so-called libertarians on this post!
"[T]he tenuous legal status of the industry has made it difficult for it to use copyright laws to inhibit competition," Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine explain in Against Intellectual Monopoly, "and so as technology has changed, pornography has become a cottage industry with many competing small-scale producers."
I totally fail to see anything "intellectual" in pornography unless they want corporate America to adapt their modus operandi for mass production and learn to reduce their manufacturing costs the way that porn "stars" go through mindless gyrations which take "two days to shoot and is made on a $20,000 budget". And by the way, if the majority within our socialist society calls them "stars" then that's an important indicator of the workings of their minds at lower than the perceptual level. Pornography lives on because of its socialistic roots, for example: “Give the people what they want”. “The people have a right to know”. Want what? Know what? BlankOut.
And now a final comment on the title of the CNBC special "Porn: Business of Pleasure."
Note that it's called the Business of Pleasure and not the Business of Joy.
Published: August 24, 2009 2:04 PM
Michael A. Clem
The people in the porn industry are not widely known as being the most ethical. I'm sure that if they could get governmental protection for their industry, they would welcome it with open arms, or legs, or whatever.
You mean, if porn was considered more "legitimate", they would be more like Hollywood? But his point was simply that, given their current situation, the porn industry is more open to competition. Whether or not they would seek government protection if they could is not relevant, or at best, a tangent. But maybe we could turn it into an argument for anarchism! If there's no government for special interests to seek privileged protections from, wouldn't all industries be more open to competition? ;-)
EnEm, I really don't see what point you're trying to make...
Published: August 24, 2009 2:17 PM
Michael A. Clem
The people in the porn industry are not widely known as being the most ethical. I'm sure that if they could get governmental protection for their industry, they would welcome it with open arms, or legs, or whatever.
You mean, if porn was considered more "legitimate", they would be more like Hollywood? But his point was simply that, given their current situation, the porn industry is more open to competition. Whether or not they would seek government protection if they could is not relevant, or at best, a tangent. But maybe we could turn it into an argument for anarchism! If there's no government for special interests to seek privileged protections from, wouldn't all industries be more open to competition? ;-)
EnEm, I really don't see what point you're trying to make...
Published: August 24, 2009 2:18 PM
HL
Russwrote:
Nothing in Mr. French's piece or my brief comment suggested the players in the Porn industry are any more moral or upright than say, for example, the cretins who run banking or cement trucks or the textbook publishing business. Indeed, I am fairly certain that if the Porn business could find a way to cut competition and make big un-earned bucks, it would.
Porn, for whatever reason, is outside the bounds of the mainstream and yet still entitled to some of the legal protections. Maybe this is why we are blessed with innovation in Porn and not banking or cement supply.
Unlike drugs, for example, Porn can make contracts, pay taxes and sue to enforce its rights vis-a-vis the State and other criminals; but, like drugs, it is pretty much left alone by the powers that be, so open competition drives the business forward - without private or public gangsters restricting competition anything becomes possible, including rapidly dropping prices and sky-rocketing quality and diversity.
It has, perhaps, the best of both worlds. Hence, if the provision of, say, education, law, widgets, or whatever, were as free, I suggest we'd all be better off. Far, far better off.
Published: August 24, 2009 2:20 PM
FarSide
"So what's eating them is the fact that they are failing to make the kind of money they expected off of a product that was made for the Majority for their greater good... Therefore, pornography can only be seen as the minion of socialism and whose right to exist is being supported by so-called libertarians on this post!"
Seriously? This statement is a crazy mutation and twisting of facts and definitions.
- I highly doubt pornographers do what they do because of any notion of "the greater good." They are trying to make money in a once highly-profitable sector.
- Technology has enabled prices of goods to plummet for centuries. This is no different.
- The fact that you frame it as "the right to exist" indicates you want to control what other people do in a fascist manner. Why should any product need a "right" to exist?
- Your definition of libertarian is confused, if you think it allows for any sort of legal backing to control "moral" and "immoral" behavior.
Published: August 24, 2009 2:25 PM
Russ
HL wrote:
"Nothing in Mr. French's piece or my brief comment suggested the players in the Porn industry are any more moral or upright than say, for example, the cretins who run banking or cement trucks or the textbook publishing business."
My bad. I thought you were saying that the porn industry welcomes competition.
"Porn, for whatever reason, is outside the bounds of the mainstream and yet still entitled to some of the legal protections. Maybe this is why we are blessed with innovation in Porn and not banking or cement supply."
I agree, although whether we are "blessed" or "cursed" with innovation in porn is a debatable point.
Published: August 24, 2009 2:38 PM
Nathan Mayer
this shit is weird
Published: August 24, 2009 2:39 PM
Franklin
I suppose this is a bit off the "content" topic as well, but it was interesting to see how CNBC was promoting and advertising the program for a week or so prior.... There were more writhing figures, leggy poses, and provocative skin in the 30 second teaser than you'd get on the long-gone "Man Show."
Whether the whore (male or female), the pornographer with the camera, or the so-called "investigative" journalist, all parties and all angles employed the innate motivator to make a buck.
Published: August 24, 2009 3:24 PM
EnEm
Response to FarSide:
One does not have to make a "profit at the risk of selling one's (Objective) soul.
Do you think a pimp works for the greater good? I think he does. All you have to do is interview his whores and they will assure you that they bring the greatest good for the greatest number. In fact, it's their motto. nd a perveyor of pornography is no different.
Published: August 24, 2009 5:09 PM
EnEm
Response to FarSide:
One does not have to make a "profit at the risk of selling one's (Objective) soul.
Do you think a pimp works for the greater good? I think he does. All you have to do is interview his whores and they will assure you that they bring the greatest good to the greatest number. In fact, it's their motto. nd a perveyor of pornography is no different.
Published: August 24, 2009 5:10 PM
EnEm
For those of you who had problems understanding my post, I say that I was addressing specific text and paragraphs in French's article. I was not waxing eloquent on the subject of pornography. But since we are back on that subject, the dilemma is:
Business by it's very nature must be ethical and moral. In the case of pornography, the business may be conducted on ethical grounds, but is the product moral?
Published: August 24, 2009 5:30 PM
Sexual Pulse
None can refuse me! Behold my sweet mask and claws! Damn your soul, I am a statist!
Published: August 24, 2009 5:42 PM
Russ
Sexual Pulse wrote:
"None can refuse me! Behold my sweet mask and claws! Damn your soul, I am a statist!"
A statist! Well, why didn't you say so? I have effectively been told on another thread that since I am a "statist" too (after all, I'm a minarchist), I am into dominating others and being dominated. So, whacha doin' later tonight, big boy? *wink wink*
*grin*
OK, to try to bring the thread back to the high scholarship that we expect from LvMI...
EnEm wrote:
"Business by it's very nature must be ethical and moral."
Why must it be moral? There is some morality that need not be enforced by government (or PDAs, or whatever). So why must business be moral if it falls into the category of activity that need not be legally forbidden?
Published: August 24, 2009 6:29 PM
MHnTX
The idea seems to be that if we offer no governmental legal protection to individual discovery that society in general will somehow be better off?
The contradiction posed in the concept of no personal legal rights to an intellectual idea is that really good ideas will go undiscovered and/or untold. Why would any man other than a desperate or insane man just give away his values? That is in all practical sense what is being proposed -- I believe -- and I would simply say it is another -- collective mob mentality -- way of attacking property rights vs. protecting and rewarding them.
There are countless ideas that men would have never shared with others if they thought for a second that others would consider them the wild free for all fodder of others to do with whatever they wished -- especially if it meant leaving them a begging pauper.
Published: August 24, 2009 8:49 PM
Abhilash Nambiar
Talk about a hot topic. I have never seen a more fair and well-balanced article on the topic of pornography yet. But some of the comments here are just darn stupid and tasteless. Not that people are not entitled to make stupid and tasteless comments and being a private blog, the blog owner decides what to do.
But I would like to address the concerns of Ralph and Russ, about ' children being able to see, say, prostitutes hawking their wares on the sidewalks, any more than you probably do.'
That is highly unlikely in a libertarian context. Sidewalks and streets would be privately owned, so the hawkers hawking their wares would be the ones that are agreeable to the people who use them, otherwise, the owner of the sidewalk will loose their clientele. Of course you can imagine different sidewalk owners catering to different clientele.
And what about, '"..a community of people to deciding what it will and won't allow within it's community and it has been so since the beginning of time."'
No problem there as well. There can be all different sorts of communities catering to all different forms of tastes, ranging from the most conservative to the most bizarre and like all privately managed organizations, they will all have their condition for entry, decided by their owner/managers.
There is no need to equally tolerate everything that is allowed by law. People with similar tastes can and will get together to make life pleasant for each other. And people with dissimilar tastes too can also contribute to that well-being in their own
unique ways. The market will discover win-win situations. So stop worrying. Neither you nor anyone you love is going to fall for 'the dark side' unless the said person really wants to.
Published: August 24, 2009 9:11 PM
Peter
In the case of pornography, the business may be conducted on ethical grounds, but is the product moral?
Is anybody forced to take part? Anybody coercing actors and/or viewers is acting immorally—but that's the case whether they're making porn or Sesame Street. If not, not.
Published: August 24, 2009 10:21 PM
Michael A. Clem
Is the product moral? I'd say yes--it contributes to the well-being of some people in our society by providing a sexual release to those who have no other outlets. It can also be complementary to those who are in intimate relationships. Of course, there are different types of porn, and people don't all react the same to porn, so it's obviously not for everybody. But otherwise, you may as well ask if a T-bone steak is a moral product.
Published: August 25, 2009 9:22 AM
RTRebel
I spent all these minutes on comments that talk about the morality of porn rather than the economics of porn!? Well ok... I guess all I have to say is that it seems that if porn were completely legalized, it will be easier to get and easier to avoid, as in, dare I say it...
freedom of choice!
Instead of waging war with other people's flesh, why not persuade with the blessings of spirit? Didn't some wise person some time ago say "It is love that attracts the pagans"? Does this not apply to "sinners" of all stripes?
Btw I very much enjoyed the article. Showing video examples quality increases in porn under freedom would have also been very enjoyable (ha!)
Published: August 26, 2009 4:39 PM
Jaycephus
Is it really true that pornography "quality" has increased? Maybe a pornograpy connoisseur can enlighten us, but do they still make actual 'movies' with plots, acting, effects, soundtrack, and so on? Or has it all just fallen down to the lowest common denominator of actor/actress/camera/internet site? What's the basis for saying quality has increased?
In other words, is there a case to be made for the lack of I.P. killing off any chance of an actual work of art being produced (or anything in that ballpark), since that would require MORE than just a few pretty faces, a bottle of Viagra, and a web-cam.
Published: August 26, 2009 7:30 PM
Randal
How about child porn? How is the market going to take care of that? Do people not have the right to create standards in the communities they live in? Isn't that freedom? The author failed to address the issue of whether porn is destructive... i think that freedom should be in quotations on this site.. you can have unfeffered economic freedom, but live in a society where people are spiritually bankrupt and slaves to materialism. Such as society is certainly not "free" by any means. This is precisely the reason why economic efficiency should never by the highest goal, or only goal, in creating a society.
"Remota itaque iustitia qui sunt regna nisi latrocinia?" loose translation- "if a society is formed without justice in mind, a great band of thieves will take control"
Saint Augustine
Published: August 27, 2009 12:08 AM
Matt
Randal--
I don't think anyone on this site would say child porn should be allowed. To take a similar example, by saying that people should be free, I don't think people should be free to kill someone else, or to rob from them. Leonard Read expressed the idea of a free society as one that allows "anything that's peaceful." So of course I would not be for murder, stealing, or child abuse, which child porn no doubt is. I can't presume to speak for all the readers/contributors to this site, but I doubt that anyone here is for making child porn legal.
As for the idea of banning all porn because it spiritually "bankrupts" people -- that's legislating morality, and I am against that. It is up to a person to decide whether or not they want to consume that. Some may not want to look at porn; some others may not worry about moral emptiness, they are more concerned with just enjoying porn. That's for each person to decide. You wouldn't want them making decisions for you about this, forcing you to buy it, and they wouldn't want you stopping them from it.
Again, the rule is any *voluntary* exchange between *adults* should be allowed. That means no one has to buy porn, no one can prevent others from buying it, and, importantly, the actors in the porn must not have been coerced into it, adults or children.
Published: August 27, 2009 12:33 AM
scott t
"As always in history, the market provides the most efficient methods for both the sin and the redemption."
i guess this is the jist of the article.
i wasnt aware of a thing called market redemption though.
was there a third way? was it church and state and market that existed?
pray to the priest , redeemed? pay the state? redeemed. pay somebody off in the market? redeemed?
as for the social ill of kiddieporn
sombody with a cell phone taking pictures of little kids on the beach and getting off to them later isnt much of an issue to me.
hell, i would send them nude infant phots of me that may parents took as therapy.
yes, starving or threatening some preschoolers unless the they 'performed' sexacts or however kiddie porn is 'forced' on kiddies - i dont know the exact methods - would certainly be unnurturing, on the perverted side and be stopped when found out.
removing the terrified kids from the producers studio or forming group houses for young prostitutes (if thats porn?)
but market redemption? what would that be?
reverse kiddieporn?
photos of kiddieporn makers on the toilet, walking around, going to work, etc. as a business or public service website?
porn in some fashion has been around for along time and sadly some kiddies have probobly had some undeserved things done to them to satisfy some weird adult appetites.
my own view is that a faith/market way would probobly do as well state concocted law response-ment.
Published: August 27, 2009 2:09 AM
Jaycephus
Child Porn:
Minors are not allowed to choose for themsleves whether they should smoke, drink, or work as a porn actress.
However, they should be allowed to chose for themselves whether they should have an abortion or not, with even Parent-notification being not-allowed?
Published: August 27, 2009 1:28 PM