Just Say No to Banning Pornography

There is a YouTube user who goes by the name Nuclearnight. I would do a video response to her myself on this one issue simply because her argument is particularly annoying, but I have decided to take an indefinite leave from making YouTube videos. Thus, I must put my response in written form.

Nuclearnight is a marxist-feminist. By this she obviously advocates the normal feminist positions, with a certain communist twist. I had no idea who this user was until a few people I'm subscribed to started doing video responses to her. The theme of most of her videos, from what I gather, is that pornography is bad, and people who support or patronize it are morally depraved slime balls. She commonly refers to women in porn as "masturbation accessories," which is clearly meant to sound demeaning to those who would even consider using them as such. She hates porn, mainly the heterosexual variety I assume, because the women in it are exploited and some of them even get hurt in the process of making pornographic material.

I should say from the outset that I'm all for people making their fellow human beings aware of the dangers of certain industries. If people are concerned about the harm one could face while tending corn fields in Iowa (you could get run over by a combine, you see), the more power to them in their crusade to spread the word about such dangers. The same goes for the porn industry. If you are concerned about the dangers of it, by all means tell others not to engage in it; tell them not to use it as well.

The problem comes when someone wants to ban porn, either in the form of placing restrictions on watching it or keeping people from entering the industry. This is what Nuclearnight seems to advocate. She is really worried that women in the industry are being harmed, once coerced into the adult entertainment business to begin with. My point is: so what.

In order to be consistent with this viewpoint, Nuclearnight needs to examine every industry that has the potential to harm its employees, along with the possibility of said employees being economically pressured into the enterprise. Take, for instance, coal miners. Many of the people who work in coal mines grow up in towns where that's just what you do when you grow up: you mine coal. Along with being pressured into the industry, many of them are actually harmed. Coal mines can collapse and a lot of miners get black lung. If you don't like that example, look at the steel industry, where the same thing occurs, along with the autos, farming, electricians, plumbers, garbage disposal workers, window cleaners, etc. The list could go on and on.

There is a certain amount of economic pressure that goes along with any industry a person goes into. People are limited by the geographic distribution of natural resources, the tastes of the people in the geographic location, the creativity of the entrepreneurs in the past and present, etc. Along with that, every industry possess risk: that's just life and there's no way to escape it. In life people get hurt. Yes, we should all strive to minimize it, but advocating the ban of entire industries with "risk of harm" as a crucial factor is a leap in logical reasoning.

I know Nuclearnight would object to much of this as the coercion of the capitalist system itself. But my claim is that the argument I just put forth about risk and economic pressure would be true in any society man could realistically conceive, even communism. Communism would not erase the desires of men; it would only try to arrange the system of production in a fashion that is more "fair" to certain people. The need to produce would still be there, along with the need for people to produce it. Those people would still live in areas that were more relatively conducive to the production of certain commodities and services than others. The limits of geography and scarcity do not disappear with the waving of the communist magic wand: hands still have to get dirty, machine wheels still have to turn, unless, of course, one wants to see humankind return to primitivism. In short, communist paradise would not eliminate the injustice that Nuclearnight so vigorously decries.

Further, true volunteerism (true anarchism for that matter) is manifested in a society that lets people decide to make bad choices. The analogy, which is perhaps overused, of Murder Park, is relevant here. Should people be able to decide to visit Murder Park, toting a gun, expecting to kill or be killed? Of course they should! So long as all parties are aware of what they are about to engage in and voluntarily enter. This is no different than allowing people decide to commit suicide. Those of us who are more rational and concerned with our own physical safety, would not dream of going in such a park. In fact, we would all probably counsel others against stepping inside its gates as well. But counsel and force are two different things. To forcefully stop someone from making an idiotic decision is evil, no matter how much we disagree with that choice. It is force without consent, pure and simple.

The logical result of Nuclearnights anti-porn meanderings is a total breakdown in the division of labor and the economic ruin of society as a whole. If she fails to advocate applying her misgivings about porn to other industries in general, she is simply guilty of special pleading, and no one should take her seriously in the first place.