Libertarianism and Porn

There was a thoughtful and thought-provoking article on Unz the other day about the author E. Michael Jones and his take on the libertarian take on porn. If I understand his position correctly, he thinks libertarians are wrong about their claims that individuals have an absolute right to do as they like provided no harm is caused as a result.

He asserts that harm is sometimes caused in an obvious yet subtler and more diffuse way than the obvious way – such as someone hitting someone else, or taking/damaging their property (and so on) – when people choose to be – for instance – licentious, as by watching pornography. He argues – and it is hard to argue the contrary – that widespread, easy access to porn (and license, generally) corrupts the individual, which then corrupts the family and thereby, the community – and ultimately, the culture. He points out that porn has been used as a weapon; that the intelligence apparatuses of various countries have used it to foster narcissism, nihilism and moral corruption, which can work even more effectively than a direct (military) attack, provided the purveyor is willing to give it time to work.

His article is worth reading, especially if you consider yourself a libertarian or an anarchist.

On the one hand, the libertarian concept of “no victim, no crime” is hugely appealing because it is binary; there either is – or there is not – a victim. Someone who has been in some tangible way harmed by the actions of someone else. The position is especially appealing of the context of the litany of manufactured “offenses” – such as not wearing a seatbelt, for instance – that seem to clearly be offenses in themselves, since (as in the case of not wearing a seatbelt) it is very difficult to see how the unbuckled person has harmed anyone else. There are so many other examples it is hardly necessary to go through them.

How about porn? How about what is now styled “sex work” – the updated term for prostitution? Jones argues that there are victims. That everyone is a victim.

Not just the woman (or the man) who sells her (or his) body for money.

The libertarian/anarchist position is that if no coercion is involved – and only consenting adults are involved – the transaction (while perhaps distasteful to some and arguably degrading to the parties involved) then it is a matter between the parties involved and no business of other people, let alone the state. It is equally difficult to argue with this argument, mainly because if one does, one concedes a principle that has the potential to undermine the entirety of libertarian-anarchist theory. It is simple. If prostitution (sex work) as well as porn is actionable because of the demonstrable generally negative effect it has then one can just as cogently make a similar argument in support of many other things would fall under what is commonly referred to as Nanny State or For Your Own Good legislation. For example, it is not hard to argue that kids accessing social media has had a generally negative effect. This effect is not, however, clearly particularized – as is equally true with regard to prostitution/porn.

There are kids who, having attentive and appropriately supervisory parents, aren’t harmed in any obvious way by limited and monitored access to social media. Similarly, it is certainly true that some women are very well-paid for the sex work/pornography they participate in and do not consider themselves victims. Who is someone else to step in and say they are? On what basis? There is certainly an issue with underage women (and girls) who are victimized – but to say all women who engage in sex work (including porn, etc.) are victims is dubious because for it to be true, all women who engage in or have engaged in sex work would have to agree that they had been victimized. It is not the case that all do. Going further, you’d have to establish they’d been literally victimized; i.e., that they had not freely chosen to engage in the activities they participated in.

That is going too far – and not just for the obvious reason.

The less obvious reason is that if one takes the position that sex work/porn necessarily victimizes all who engage in it because some say it is a degradation, unhealthy, etc – then you have taken the position that anything that is arguably unhealthy or which some say degrades those who engage in it is something that ought to be forbidden, with the implication that it ought to be criminalized or at least made an  actionable “offense” to some lesser degree.

Is it unhealthy to eat to excess? Obviously, it can be. Is it degrading for a grown man to wear the jersey of his favorite sportsball team and paint his face and emotionally invest in his “team”? Arguably, it is. There are countless examples of things we do that others might – with some justification – regard as unhealthy or degrading; some of these things are certainly not “good for society,” either. But do they rise to the level of criminality?

To the level of actionable “offenses”?

In the libertarian schema, things that arguably ought not to be done for reasons of health or because they are degrading are refrained from as a consequence of rational thought; i.e., reason says that to do an unhealthy thing is contrary to one’s rational self interest and it is irrational to participate in degrading things. Granted, not everyone has the self-control and self-will to restrain themselves. But should they be restrained externally? More specifically, should the state be involved?

Why not, instead, involve the family – and friends? The community? In a voluntary manner? More finely put, isn’t it the obligation of families and friends to assume the responsibility for themselves?

The individual is free to not associate with people and things he does not want to be associated with. Families have the right to freely associate – and to not associate. This scales. Individuals and families are the community. This community has the power to – as Nancy Reagan used to say – Just Say No to things it does not consider to be healthful or that it considers to be degrading. It does not mean unhealthful and degrading things will entirely go away, of course. That is the false premise often used by critics of the libertarian/anarchist ideas of individual (and thereby, community) autonomy. These critics posit an implicit and imaginary perfect scenario to malign a better (or at least, preferable) actual one. A good example of this being the reply to libertarian/anarchist objections to being compelled to pay taxes for police, which holds that without police, criminals would commit crimes with impunity. Yet they still do exactly that, despite tax-financed police. And they would continue to do so absent tax-financed police. The difference is people would not be taxed to pay for it.

Just the same, there will always be porn and sex work because there will always be people who want to pay for it and that creates a market for it. The market can be forced underground; it can be punished. It cannot be eliminated. Yes, it can be reduced – but at what cost? Is it better to have less porn and more state? Some will say yes. Others will say no. Which is the right view? I suppose it all depends upon one’s view of what’s right!

. . . 

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.