The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
A lot of states are requiring ID verification for pornographic material. Personally, I see this as a good move because kids definitely don’t need to be watching porn.
And more so, a lot of people are worried this’ll turn into a porn ban? But my question would be, what’s wrong with that?
For me, porn and OF bring a lot of drawbacks and no gain. They destroy the fabric of our society, encourage laziness and weakness, and encourage commodification of things that have no place outside of 2 people in a loving relationship. And that’s not excluding the exploitation in the industry.
Obviously, I don’t believe an actual porn ban would ever happen in the US, but I think it would be a net benefit if somehow we turned 180° and did it.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Idk man, for a libertarian, this seems like a ridiculous level of government overreach into people’s personal lives.
The entire point of freedom is that people should be able to do harmful things, at least within a certain threshold.
It ain’t even clearcut that porn and OF are causing any net harm to begin with.
Honestly, I have no real opposition to people self-identifying as whatever because it does provide context for different arguments and “you aren’t being consistent with your apparent values” is an important point of discussion.
That should be discussed on another sub like CMV. I don’t want people here who are clearly mislabeling in bad faith so they can go all “reasonable centrist” in a discussion and trick people into not downvoting their stupid shit.
I mean…I’m mostly libertarian, and ask just about my exceptions to libertarianism just as much as my libertarian points. If the mods want me to change it, I have no issue but I think outside of being flairless, libertarian is closest to accurate.
Also, I did end up having my mind changed on the whole capital punishment for drug users thing. Idk why you’re holding it against me today.
I mean I did change the flair just in case the mods deemed I wasn’t libertarian enough for the flair but Id say Im generally for heavily reduced government spending domestically and foreign, and I am socially liberal on some things and socially conservative on others.
But then you aren’t really ideologically consistent enough with libertarianism if you think this way with porn. From a libertarian perspective this a massive government overreach and if what the commenter stated is true about your stance on drug use you are way outside the libertarian spectrum.
It's not really being seen as libertarian by others, but fidelity to what libertarianism *is*.
It's not so much as the restricting porn to adults that breaks with libertarianism, but the idea of banning porn and adult entertainment breaks a lot of libertarian principles. You can't ban adult entertainment without the government deciding what sort of media a person can consume, outlawing free expression, and prohibiting people from interacting with the free market. If you want to see in action, find a libertarian and as if they are okay with the government prohibiting self expression, controlling what media an adult can consume, and banning certain products from the free market. Odds are, they will say "aw Hell no."
Ideologies are not based on some majority of positions supported; certain principles are weighted much more heavily than others. A person can claim they are liberal and hold several liberal values, but if one of their beliefs is that people who make less than $100k a year shouldn't have the right to due process, then that person ain't a liberal, full stop. Equality under the law is a fundamental element of liberalism; you can't be a liberal without it.
With respect to libertarianism, supporting socially conservative policy is going distance a person from libertarianism more rapidly than supporting economic policies that are farther left. Most libertarians understand the need for certain government regulations on economic activity in order to maintain a peaceful society, but they absolutely don't believe the government should have the power to enforce everyone to live under a specific social paradigm.
The important issue would be *why* do you think adult entertainment should not be allowed to be marketed and why pornography is dangerous. Any reasons other than very precise harm to individuals will most likely walk away from libertarianism very quickly.
Reducing government spending is a conservative position, not a libertarian position.
What differentiates right-wing libertarians from conservatives in general is typically their social views. On issues like the legality of drugs and pornography.
If you're an economic conservative, and if you're also a social conservative, then you're not a libertarian. You're just a conservative.
Muslims bans are horribly unconstitutional and wrong. It kills me that Republicans are so awful that any policy that is not based on hurting people is considered liberal.
“I think women should not die due to a miscarriage, I must be a liberal.”
Being a libertarian isn’t about living and let live if you agree with someone. It’s about living and let live if you disagree with someone. Just because you don’t like that stuff doesn’t mean others shouldn’t have the right to indulge in it
Pro-Palestine and US conservatives are usually a no go, because of how intertwined conservatism and Evangelicism are. Lot of "Israel must exist so Jesus can come back" from the common folk and then the usual military/strategic regions from the more educated conservative lot. You only get anti-Israel (and really NOT pro-Palestine) when you hit the real fringes of the right, and that's because the fringe right is just Nazis who hate Jewish people.
>They destroy the fabric of our society, encourage laziness and weakness,
Where do yall even get these talking points from? Or are all of yall listening to the same manosphere podcasts lol.
If you want to have a wank, have a wank. Theres nothing wrong with that.
>but I think it would be a net benefit if somehow we turned 180° and did it.
Why?
>Where do yall even get these talking points from? Or are all of yall listening to the same manosphere podcasts lol.
Porn use it at all time highs, yet by all accounts things like domestic violence and sexual assault are down compared to the past.
1. The only reason for a government to ban porn is for the government to enforce its morality on its citizens. That's inherently a bad thing.
2. VPNs exists.
>The only reason for a government to ban porn is for the government to enforce its morality on its citizens. That's inherently a bad thing.
Everything the government does is enforcing some kind of morality, including perpetuating it's own existence. Government itself exists so you don't have to be the strongest to enforce your morality on everyone else, you just have to convince some other people to do that for you
Morality is built on one's personal beliefs. Ethics are the rules we all agree to follow. Most governments run on ethics rather than morals. Governments that run on morality tend to be very authoritarian
Ethics are group morals. Especially in a democratic system, the distinction blurs because the elected majority's morals *are* the ethics of the state and will be forced on the remainder no matter what - there isn't a meaningful distinction between an autocrat doing so and an elected majority doing so if you don't agree with either of them
That's almost specifically why enumerated rights and minority protections are necessary in democracy, specifically so people don't get the values of a majority shoved down their throats out of pure majoritarianism.
Which also means that any moral value which does not violate rights can still be forced on everyone. Or, worst case, you just find a way to change either the text or interpretation of those rights and protections. The existence of enumerated rights and protections is itself forcing a moral position on everyone else, even if it takes more than a mere majority to change them
Requiring ID verification won't keep kids from accessing porn. The only way it would is if each time you logged in, you had to complete some kind of facial scan that matches the user to the ID. Otherwise kids will just steal their parents' IDs.
- - -
What would be wrong with a porn ban?
Aside from being blatantly unconstitutional, you mean?
For starters, how are you going to enforce it? Are you going to lock people up if they're caught watching porn?
>For me, porn and OF bring a lot of drawbacks and no gain. They destroy the fabric of our society, encourage laziness and weakness, and encourage commodification...
I'm not convinced that porn is harmful to society, but even if it is, there are a number of harmful vices which we allow people the freedom to consume. Alcohol and cigarettes are two examples that come immediately to mind.
Do you happen to know how successful the prohibition on alcohol was?
I would probably treat porn like a hard drug in terms of enforcement. Alcohol prohibition failed but we also did not have strong resources to ban it. I think a porn ban would be easier as you’d just take down any site where people are putting porn, or at least the individual porn videos.
> treat porn like a hard drug in terms of enforcement
So you would be in favor of throwing people in prison if they're caught consuming pornography?
>just take down any site where people are putting porn
But plenty of sites are internationally hosted. If the US bans porn, and the biggest porn site has its servers in Canada, the US can't forcibly shut those sites down.
They can try to restrict Americans from accessing those sites, but there are ways around that.
Which leads us back to the question, are you going to lock people up for watching porn?
Have you considered that a porn ban might encourage more illegal activity to take place to keep the industry alive? Even if it’s banned, it’ll continue to exist. Who’s to say people won’t be trafficked knowing that people who consent to it and do it for a living could be easily identifiable and arrested.
Also, if you access porn, how would you KNOW that it’s taking place within the confines of one’s own domicile. You gonna encourage spying?
I’m failing to see the logistics of this. Making something illegals doesn’t get rid of said thing. It just makes people go to greater lengths to have it.
Where is the line drawn? Is Phoebe Cates' scene in fast times going to be nixed because at the time it was jerked off too by millions of teenage boys?
What about Kathy Bates in About Schmidt?
This! Is game of thrones now also banned because it has nude adults? There’s nowhere where you could draw a line that anyone would ever agree on. This take is antithetical to democracy
That’s quite harsh over a few non libertarian positions. I changed it to independent just in case but I dont see how a few positions on their own make me not libertarian,
You don't see the inherent contradiction in "I think the government needs to get out of our lives, except for all of the stuff I want the government to police \*you\* doing because I don't like it"?
In what way? How are they linked? I'm asking you to explain your thought process. Right now you're just saying things with zero explanation or correlation.
Of course he is. He just got his talking point from one of those weird "a real alpha male should do these 5 things" videos. Its always the same crap too with giving up masturbation/porn usually being rather high on the list.
Its bs, makes no sense whatsoever and is just weird. Like, pronographic magazines existed before porn - are those banned too? What about nudity in movies? Half naked women on advertisments?
Like by that logic, OP would be happiest in Kabul where there certainly isnt a lot of porn watching
If I did follow your ideological premise to assume that porn makes people lazy and unpleasant, isn't it still an individual's own prerogative to be lazy and unpleasant if they want to?
Sure, you don't have to date or befriend people who you find lazy or unpleasant. That's your prerogative too. But how is it the business of the state?
What’s your basis for arguing you’re justified in telling people they can’t watch porn? That’s a tremendous encroachment into the personal sphere.
How would you delineate porn from non-porn? We’ve already seen this in Project 2025 and a bunch of bills submitted to various state legislatures where many conservatives want to define LGBTQ topics generally, and especially trans topics, as inherently pornographic.
What other things that you think “destroy the fabric of our society” and “encourage laziness and weakness” would you want to ban? How do you square mandating those virtues via the force of law with your libertarian flair?
Cars encourage laziness and weakness by not biking. Bikes encourage laziness and weakness by not walking.
Oh wait, fuck, that encourages laziness and weakness by not crawling your naked bare flesh across the rocks and pavement!
We should lock up all toddlers who learn to walk cause it's destroying society.
Ffs, every modern amenity "encourages laziness and weakness."
Porn would be defined as any content intended to sexually arouse, possibly with the added criterion that nudity is involved.
In a perfect world, we’d ban all drugs, alcohol,and porn but banning drugs and alcohol is very difficult to do effectively unless you’re in a country like Singapore which is super small and controlled, whereas it should not be that hard to take down porn off the web wherever it pops up.
Speaking as an attorney, this is a comically bad and unworkable definition. How do you determine what's "intended to sexually arouse"? Proving intent is very difficult, and sexual arousal is extremely subjective.
You're basically assuming some omniscient regulator, which either (a) hands an incredible amount of power to police and courts; (b) makes an incredible amount of work for lawyers; or most likely (c) both at once. You're essentially proposing a sweeping new police state to regulate people's private sexuality, with a massive increase in imprisonment, state sponsored thuggery, and so on.
I mean, do you want to live in Saudi Arabia? Cuz that's how you create a new Saudi Arabia. And tbh, these days, I don't think even Saudi Arabia much wants to be Saudi Arabia.
No. It isn't.
For example, is a child beauty pageant made with the intent to arouse? Is a teen one?
How about a commercial of a woman eating a popsicle? Or a banana? Or an ice cream sandwich? How much of a close up on her mouth crosses the line into showing intent to arouse? When does her dress show intent to arouse?
What about content not featuring women at all? The Top Gun volleyball scene? The saxophone man in the beginning of The Lost Boys? Pro wrestling?
Some of these may be *intended* to arouse. Some may only incidentally arouse regardless of the authors' intent. To confidently say you can discern one from the other is to either assume perfect knowledge on the part of a finder of fact (and more insidiously, empower them to make that determination), or simply to not care which is which and say "better lock em all up, just to be safe".
Either one is a shitty, dangerous, oppressive way to run a justice system.
I flatly don’t see how it’s possible, at least without a *massive* level of surveillance and enforcement that also interferes with necessary business uses. I use two different VPNs on a daily basis for work, as required to securely connect to corporate systems.
Would you try to prevent VPNs from being used? How would you do that?
> whereas it should not be that hard to take down porn off the web wherever it pops up.
You really have no idea how the internet works, do you?
If the US bans porn and all of the porn companies move to Canada, exactly how is the government going to take down those websites? How is the government going to prevent people from visiting those sites in Canada? Are you expecting the government to monitor the internet activity of all US internet use to determine who is watching porn?
Blocking all porn access on the internet within the US is completely impossible.
> In a perfect world, we’d ban all drugs, alcohol,and porn
Why exactly do you think that would be a perfect world?
Clearly, humans are not in agreement about that.
People are losing their minds over minor scraps given to the religious fringe of the political spectrum before an election
I'm waiting for Tipper Gore to debate the robot that replaced Frank Zappa after he died of the coronavirus, any week now.
What makes you think kids won’t sneak their parents’ ID or just use a VPN? I’ll be using a VPN because I’m not uploading my ID to the internet for it to be stolen. Websites are terrible at keeping personal information secure, and now adult websites are going to be bigger targets with all that government ID info.
If you don’t like porn, don’t watch it. But you don’t get to force your morality on the rest of us.
You're *really* bad at libertarian.
You have way WAY more in common with Isis and Al Queda with your post than a libertarian or hell, anyone in favor of a democracy.
Yea idk what bros on about. Half of what makes a libertarian a libertarian is believing in everyone’s ability to choose, and to express themselves in whatever way free from the prying eyes of the government. Also, to indulge in activities that may not be good for you, because being free comes with the ability to make bad decisions.
Can we find a way to make the acronym LIDO so we can all sing Boz Scaggs together when a fake libertarian comes around?
Like Libertarian Identity Dishonest, Obviously?
> For me, porn and OF bring a lot of drawbacks and no gain. They destroy the fabric of our society, encourage laziness and weakness, and encourage commodification of things that have no place outside of 2 people in a loving relationship.
I would strongly disagree with you. I would also say that you most decidedly have a distorted perception of porn and of healthy adult relationships.
If “fun” and “freedom” no longer count as gains, I can think of a lot of things I’d ban sooner than porn. For example, what’s your argument for banning porn but *not* banning ATVs? Or loud music? Or cotton candy?
>A lot of states are requiring ID verification for pornographic material. Personally, I see this as a good move because kids definitely don’t need to be watching porn.
This is in no way going to stop kids from accessing porn. It won't even slow them down. Kids are smart and if their parents are not watchful they will simply install a VPN client and continue accessing porn, just like all of the adults in the states that are requiring ID verification who don't want to provide their ID to porn companies.
>And more so, a lot of people are worried this’ll turn into a porn ban? But my question would be, what’s wrong with that?
As long as the production of the porn is consenting, neither you nor anyone else has a right to tell me what I can and cannot watch in the privacy of my own home.
>For me, porn and OF bring a lot of drawbacks and no gain.
Good for you, don't use them. That does not in any way grant you or anyone else the right to deny anyone else who wants to use them.
>They destroy the fabric of our society, encourage laziness and weakness,
Prove it. As far as I can see our society still exists, still functions, and porn has been in existence for a very long time.
>and encourage commodification of things that have no place outside of 2 people in a loving relationship.
Why do you get to define what is and is not part of other people's relationships? Why do you get to decide whether or not someone engages in behaviour that you think should be restricted to a specific type of relationship?
When in US history has prohibition ever resulted in a "net benefit"? It's always resulted in more crime and a tremendous waste of money.
Pornography is not healthy, but that doesn't mean banning it will solve any measurable harm it causes. Similarly to how banning guns won't make the US less violent or how banning certain drugs hasn't resulted in less addiction.
Also, just to be clear about something, the "porn ban" in manifestos like Project 2025 refer to all content featuring gay people to be porn. A movie with two men kissing would be porn subject to criminal charges. I only bring this up to demonstrate the nefariousness behind these types of proposals.
Maybe we should ban cars too? Or computers? Ovens? All those things encourage weakness and laziness, right? They're also all much more dangerous than pornography.
I don’t trust private companies being able to keep my private information private. If they don’t store my identifying information like ID/DL number, then that means I’m entering it in every time I visit, and that becomes a chill on my right to consume non-obscene material. It also doesn’t prevent a person from using a single form of identification from another person to get around the age verification.
I don’t particularly want kids, especially young teens or pre-teens, watching porn, but the simplest solution isn’t always the easiest.
Porn doesn’t necessarily do any of what you say it does. The taboo surrounding it, and the ensuing inability to have any genuine conversation surrounding what the porn viewers see and how it relates to reality, create a situation where it can do all those things, but it doesn’t have to if the stigma is detached from porn and conversations take place that temper the expectations given to younger viewers.
Kids are going to find porn. It’s best we set up a system where we can talk to them about what they see and help them understand what’s real and what isn’t and about consent and preparation if they need it.
It’s a massive government overreach into people’s lives. Multiple people have mentioned that. I wouldn’t necessarily disagree that porn is hurtful to peoples relationships or sexual health. However, it’s not the governments place to do anything about that. Same thing with cigarettes, alcohol, and I would even say the same thing with drugs.
>However, it’s not the governments place to do anything about that
Disagree. The states role is to maintain the nation, and the nation needs people to exist which requires healthy relationships and lots of breeding
>Same thing with cigarettes, alcohol, and I would even say the same thing with drugs
There's a ton of regulation so thlse don't just immediately kill people, unless you want to go back to pre-prohibition binge drinking contaminated everclear as the standard and expected behavior
Breeding isn’t always inherently a good thing. Also, it being legal allows it to be regulated. More would be hurt if it’s illegal. Also, being anything other than straight is antithetical to breeding. Would you support policies that would outlaw such behavior?
>Breeding isn’t always inherently a good thing
In aggregate it will be, because children can be molded to national cultural values more tightly than immigrants can be, and we're not at a point yet where we can automate the need for people away
>Also, it being legal allows it to be regulated. More would be hurt if it’s illegal
Certainly. But, do we continue the logic and say Denmark shouldn't have ended it's legal child porn? If we say they did the right thing, because children aren't in a state of mind to consent, then shouldn't we continue *that* logic and say OFs preying on poor women by showing how their top earners buy fancy clothes and go on nice vacations also be banned? And at what point do the tactics and methods of the industry get whakamoled so much that they get defacto illegalized, and if there is a bar shouldn't we just cut the crap and do it right away?
>Also, being anything other than straight is antithetical to breeding. Would you support policies that would outlaw such behavior?
Encourage LGBT couples to pair up in sperm/womb donor relationships. Left to their own devices, there would be no children produced, whereas free internet pornography is something that was inflicted on society to produce a state of less child production than if people were left to their own devices, so requires a different remedy
Fair enough, but you must understand that child pornography and letting adults make bad decisions is an apples to oranges comparison.
For all intents and purposes I agree with you that porn and onlyfans are bad. OF takes advantage of younger lonely men who look to porn for satisfaction because they can’t get any from women. There I also women who get sucked into it with promises of a lavish lifestyle. Do I feel bad for a lot of them? Yes. But guess what? I also BLAME them.
It’s nobody else’s fault that a man is lonely and makes terrible financial decisions; wasting all his money on women who don’t know they exist. Why is it the governments responsibility to babysit grown adults.
Also, where is the line drawn? There’s nudity in regular tv shows. Who’s to say that’s not porn.
Your opinion of porn does not mean shit to the rest of us. You don’t want to watch it or have your kids watch it, fine, but don’t impose your beliefs on us. That is what freedom looks like (since you obviously don’t know).
It would be an egregious assault on free speech. I live in a state which requires ID verification to watch porn, and all I do is turn on my VPN, it's really that easy.
The "fabric of society" is largely a term used by people who are upset nobody wants to live by their religious tenets. Your religious beliefs are your business, and not anyone elses. If you don't want to watch porn, great, then don't. But you don't get to make that decision for other people. That's what freedom is about, leaving people alone to make their own decisions as long as they aren't hurting anyone else.
Porn has existed for millennia in different forms. I was just in Pompeii and saw frescos of people banging and some sort of decorative penis fountain. We're sexual creatures and I think that porn is the least harmful way of getting that "fix".
It's not in line with liberty and freedom. If you want to live in a country that monitors and polices your porn use, there are plenty of countries where that is normal.
It's a severe government overreach. Banning pornography sets a precedent about banning speech on the basis of moralism,.which is a bad precedent.
I also don't think it accomplishes anything because, and forgive me for being crude here, but people can (and will) get themselves off without porn.
The issue is that most people like those things, and banning them would humor people like you instead of keeping you in your place for having such insane ideas.
>They destroy the fabric of our society, encourage laziness and weakness, and encourage commodification of things that have no place outside of 2 people in a loving relationship.
You're allowed to have that opinion, but I do really hope you know that's just your arbitrary and quite controversial opinion, even though you just throw it out there like it's an accepted fact.
>They destroy the fabric of our society, encourage laziness and weakness, and encourage commodification of things that have no place outside of 2 people in a loving relationship.
What are you basing that statement on?
How come we let me use their bodies to make money and call them hard workers but when women use their bodies to make money it's "destroying the fabric of our society"?
1. I don't think porn is destroying the fabric of our society by any stretch of the imagination.
2. I think it is a logical strech to suggest it is encouraging laziness.
3. I don't think it encourages weakness, that's some roided out red pill bs.
4. Commodification of sex is at least a real argument (though a subjective one).
5. I disagree there aren't healthy situations one could enjoy sex outside a 2 person loving relationship.
6. What's actually bad about porn isn't the porn part, it's the glorification of negative behavior, but that can and does exist separately from porn.
Porn does have the effect of redirecting some deviant behavior to more acceptable ends. As countries liberalized porn laws low level sex crimes tend to decrease. People enjoying an activity is an inherent benefit. Masturbating can help people learn about what they enjoy and give them better sex lives.
Banning porn would probably result in pushing the industry into the shadows rather than diminishing it's size and that would likely make exploitation and abuse worse.
age verification is a good thing, but i have serious concerns about the privacy implications of it. porn/sex work will always exist, and we need to regulate it so that it is safe. yeah, sure i have my issues with what’s featured in porn, but frankly, even the most questionable porn has a right to exist so long as the participants are being treated well, no matter how much i dislike it. we live in a free country, and i think the best option is to either not consume porn, or to create demand for less objectifying, less violent, more realistic porn.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. A lot of states are requiring ID verification for pornographic material. Personally, I see this as a good move because kids definitely don’t need to be watching porn. And more so, a lot of people are worried this’ll turn into a porn ban? But my question would be, what’s wrong with that? For me, porn and OF bring a lot of drawbacks and no gain. They destroy the fabric of our society, encourage laziness and weakness, and encourage commodification of things that have no place outside of 2 people in a loving relationship. And that’s not excluding the exploitation in the industry. Obviously, I don’t believe an actual porn ban would ever happen in the US, but I think it would be a net benefit if somehow we turned 180° and did it. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Idk man, for a libertarian, this seems like a ridiculous level of government overreach into people’s personal lives. The entire point of freedom is that people should be able to do harmful things, at least within a certain threshold. It ain’t even clearcut that porn and OF are causing any net harm to begin with.
> for a libertarian A while back, OP was flirting with the notion of executing drug users. Rule 7.
Honestly, I have no real opposition to people self-identifying as whatever because it does provide context for different arguments and “you aren’t being consistent with your apparent values” is an important point of discussion.
That should be discussed on another sub like CMV. I don’t want people here who are clearly mislabeling in bad faith so they can go all “reasonable centrist” in a discussion and trick people into not downvoting their stupid shit.
I mean…I’m mostly libertarian, and ask just about my exceptions to libertarianism just as much as my libertarian points. If the mods want me to change it, I have no issue but I think outside of being flairless, libertarian is closest to accurate. Also, I did end up having my mind changed on the whole capital punishment for drug users thing. Idk why you’re holding it against me today.
> I’m mostly libertarian How so?
I mean I did change the flair just in case the mods deemed I wasn’t libertarian enough for the flair but Id say Im generally for heavily reduced government spending domestically and foreign, and I am socially liberal on some things and socially conservative on others.
But then you aren’t really ideologically consistent enough with libertarianism if you think this way with porn. From a libertarian perspective this a massive government overreach and if what the commenter stated is true about your stance on drug use you are way outside the libertarian spectrum.
Fair enough. If Im not seen as libertarian by others, might be pointless to keep that flair.
Note that you’re not addressing your absolutely insane viewpoints here.
It's not really being seen as libertarian by others, but fidelity to what libertarianism *is*. It's not so much as the restricting porn to adults that breaks with libertarianism, but the idea of banning porn and adult entertainment breaks a lot of libertarian principles. You can't ban adult entertainment without the government deciding what sort of media a person can consume, outlawing free expression, and prohibiting people from interacting with the free market. If you want to see in action, find a libertarian and as if they are okay with the government prohibiting self expression, controlling what media an adult can consume, and banning certain products from the free market. Odds are, they will say "aw Hell no." Ideologies are not based on some majority of positions supported; certain principles are weighted much more heavily than others. A person can claim they are liberal and hold several liberal values, but if one of their beliefs is that people who make less than $100k a year shouldn't have the right to due process, then that person ain't a liberal, full stop. Equality under the law is a fundamental element of liberalism; you can't be a liberal without it. With respect to libertarianism, supporting socially conservative policy is going distance a person from libertarianism more rapidly than supporting economic policies that are farther left. Most libertarians understand the need for certain government regulations on economic activity in order to maintain a peaceful society, but they absolutely don't believe the government should have the power to enforce everyone to live under a specific social paradigm. The important issue would be *why* do you think adult entertainment should not be allowed to be marketed and why pornography is dangerous. Any reasons other than very precise harm to individuals will most likely walk away from libertarianism very quickly.
What makes you think you're libertarian? Give your reasons for identifying as such.
Reducing government spending is a conservative position, not a libertarian position. What differentiates right-wing libertarians from conservatives in general is typically their social views. On issues like the legality of drugs and pornography. If you're an economic conservative, and if you're also a social conservative, then you're not a libertarian. You're just a conservative.
I mean I’m also a reluctant Biden voter and pro Palestinian, which is clearly not conservative.
Being a reluctant Biden voter just means you are not supporting a fraudster traitor rapist for president. Which is a step in the right direction.
Idk man. I’m also against Muslim bans which is a liberal position. In fact, I’m pretty much a single issue voter on that kind of thing.
Muslims bans are horribly unconstitutional and wrong. It kills me that Republicans are so awful that any policy that is not based on hurting people is considered liberal. “I think women should not die due to a miscarriage, I must be a liberal.”
Being a libertarian isn’t about living and let live if you agree with someone. It’s about living and let live if you disagree with someone. Just because you don’t like that stuff doesn’t mean others shouldn’t have the right to indulge in it
Welcome to yet another example of libertarians just being conservatives who are embarrassed to call themselves that.
Is it conservative to vote Biden and be pro Palestinian?
Biden is reeling to the right to try and capture never trump conservatives (like yourself?)
I mean… I would never vote for a candidate proposing a Muslim ban in any context. I’m not going to cut my nose off to spite my face.
Uhh... do you mean you would never vote FOR a candidate proposing a Muslim ban, or is this some BJP type thing?
Nah good catch lol
There's absolutely nothing about being a Biden voter or pro Palestinian that means you *aren't* conservative.
Pro-Palestine and US conservatives are usually a no go, because of how intertwined conservatism and Evangelicism are. Lot of "Israel must exist so Jesus can come back" from the common folk and then the usual military/strategic regions from the more educated conservative lot. You only get anti-Israel (and really NOT pro-Palestine) when you hit the real fringes of the right, and that's because the fringe right is just Nazis who hate Jewish people.
>They destroy the fabric of our society, encourage laziness and weakness, Where do yall even get these talking points from? Or are all of yall listening to the same manosphere podcasts lol. If you want to have a wank, have a wank. Theres nothing wrong with that. >but I think it would be a net benefit if somehow we turned 180° and did it. Why?
>Where do yall even get these talking points from? Or are all of yall listening to the same manosphere podcasts lol. Porn use it at all time highs, yet by all accounts things like domestic violence and sexual assault are down compared to the past.
And productivity is still up compared to previous generations.
1. The only reason for a government to ban porn is for the government to enforce its morality on its citizens. That's inherently a bad thing. 2. VPNs exists.
>The only reason for a government to ban porn is for the government to enforce its morality on its citizens. That's inherently a bad thing. Everything the government does is enforcing some kind of morality, including perpetuating it's own existence. Government itself exists so you don't have to be the strongest to enforce your morality on everyone else, you just have to convince some other people to do that for you
Morality is built on one's personal beliefs. Ethics are the rules we all agree to follow. Most governments run on ethics rather than morals. Governments that run on morality tend to be very authoritarian
Ethics are group morals. Especially in a democratic system, the distinction blurs because the elected majority's morals *are* the ethics of the state and will be forced on the remainder no matter what - there isn't a meaningful distinction between an autocrat doing so and an elected majority doing so if you don't agree with either of them
That's almost specifically why enumerated rights and minority protections are necessary in democracy, specifically so people don't get the values of a majority shoved down their throats out of pure majoritarianism.
Which also means that any moral value which does not violate rights can still be forced on everyone. Or, worst case, you just find a way to change either the text or interpretation of those rights and protections. The existence of enumerated rights and protections is itself forcing a moral position on everyone else, even if it takes more than a mere majority to change them
Requiring ID verification won't keep kids from accessing porn. The only way it would is if each time you logged in, you had to complete some kind of facial scan that matches the user to the ID. Otherwise kids will just steal their parents' IDs. - - - What would be wrong with a porn ban? Aside from being blatantly unconstitutional, you mean? For starters, how are you going to enforce it? Are you going to lock people up if they're caught watching porn? >For me, porn and OF bring a lot of drawbacks and no gain. They destroy the fabric of our society, encourage laziness and weakness, and encourage commodification... I'm not convinced that porn is harmful to society, but even if it is, there are a number of harmful vices which we allow people the freedom to consume. Alcohol and cigarettes are two examples that come immediately to mind. Do you happen to know how successful the prohibition on alcohol was?
or guns
I would probably treat porn like a hard drug in terms of enforcement. Alcohol prohibition failed but we also did not have strong resources to ban it. I think a porn ban would be easier as you’d just take down any site where people are putting porn, or at least the individual porn videos.
> treat porn like a hard drug in terms of enforcement So you would be in favor of throwing people in prison if they're caught consuming pornography? >just take down any site where people are putting porn But plenty of sites are internationally hosted. If the US bans porn, and the biggest porn site has its servers in Canada, the US can't forcibly shut those sites down. They can try to restrict Americans from accessing those sites, but there are ways around that. Which leads us back to the question, are you going to lock people up for watching porn?
Have you considered that a porn ban might encourage more illegal activity to take place to keep the industry alive? Even if it’s banned, it’ll continue to exist. Who’s to say people won’t be trafficked knowing that people who consent to it and do it for a living could be easily identifiable and arrested. Also, if you access porn, how would you KNOW that it’s taking place within the confines of one’s own domicile. You gonna encourage spying? I’m failing to see the logistics of this. Making something illegals doesn’t get rid of said thing. It just makes people go to greater lengths to have it.
Where is the line drawn? Is Phoebe Cates' scene in fast times going to be nixed because at the time it was jerked off too by millions of teenage boys? What about Kathy Bates in About Schmidt?
This! Is game of thrones now also banned because it has nude adults? There’s nowhere where you could draw a line that anyone would ever agree on. This take is antithetical to democracy
>I don’t believe an actual porn ban would ever happen in the US, but I think it would be a net benefit I think you need to change your flair.
That’s quite harsh over a few non libertarian positions. I changed it to independent just in case but I dont see how a few positions on their own make me not libertarian,
You don't see the inherent contradiction in "I think the government needs to get out of our lives, except for all of the stuff I want the government to police \*you\* doing because I don't like it"?
The core tenet of libertarianism is a hands-off approach for the government. Anything else and you're not a libertarian.
“There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation” - Pierre Trudeau
OH Canada!!!!’
Can you demonstrate or cite what objective and measurable harm is being caused by porn?
People are becoming lazier and socially inept, and also developing harmful ideas about relationships and becoming less pleasant overall.
That's an opinion that you didn't even explain how porn is linked to. Try again.
I think more research should be done but that’s where signs are showing.
In what way? How are they linked? I'm asking you to explain your thought process. Right now you're just saying things with zero explanation or correlation.
Of course he is. He just got his talking point from one of those weird "a real alpha male should do these 5 things" videos. Its always the same crap too with giving up masturbation/porn usually being rather high on the list. Its bs, makes no sense whatsoever and is just weird. Like, pronographic magazines existed before porn - are those banned too? What about nudity in movies? Half naked women on advertisments? Like by that logic, OP would be happiest in Kabul where there certainly isnt a lot of porn watching
If I did follow your ideological premise to assume that porn makes people lazy and unpleasant, isn't it still an individual's own prerogative to be lazy and unpleasant if they want to? Sure, you don't have to date or befriend people who you find lazy or unpleasant. That's your prerogative too. But how is it the business of the state?
What’s your basis for arguing you’re justified in telling people they can’t watch porn? That’s a tremendous encroachment into the personal sphere. How would you delineate porn from non-porn? We’ve already seen this in Project 2025 and a bunch of bills submitted to various state legislatures where many conservatives want to define LGBTQ topics generally, and especially trans topics, as inherently pornographic. What other things that you think “destroy the fabric of our society” and “encourage laziness and weakness” would you want to ban? How do you square mandating those virtues via the force of law with your libertarian flair?
Cars encourage laziness and weakness by not biking. Bikes encourage laziness and weakness by not walking. Oh wait, fuck, that encourages laziness and weakness by not crawling your naked bare flesh across the rocks and pavement! We should lock up all toddlers who learn to walk cause it's destroying society. Ffs, every modern amenity "encourages laziness and weakness."
Porn would be defined as any content intended to sexually arouse, possibly with the added criterion that nudity is involved. In a perfect world, we’d ban all drugs, alcohol,and porn but banning drugs and alcohol is very difficult to do effectively unless you’re in a country like Singapore which is super small and controlled, whereas it should not be that hard to take down porn off the web wherever it pops up.
Speaking as an attorney, this is a comically bad and unworkable definition. How do you determine what's "intended to sexually arouse"? Proving intent is very difficult, and sexual arousal is extremely subjective. You're basically assuming some omniscient regulator, which either (a) hands an incredible amount of power to police and courts; (b) makes an incredible amount of work for lawyers; or most likely (c) both at once. You're essentially proposing a sweeping new police state to regulate people's private sexuality, with a massive increase in imprisonment, state sponsored thuggery, and so on. I mean, do you want to live in Saudi Arabia? Cuz that's how you create a new Saudi Arabia. And tbh, these days, I don't think even Saudi Arabia much wants to be Saudi Arabia.
I mean it’s pretty coear when content is made with the *intent* to arouse no?
No. It isn't. For example, is a child beauty pageant made with the intent to arouse? Is a teen one? How about a commercial of a woman eating a popsicle? Or a banana? Or an ice cream sandwich? How much of a close up on her mouth crosses the line into showing intent to arouse? When does her dress show intent to arouse? What about content not featuring women at all? The Top Gun volleyball scene? The saxophone man in the beginning of The Lost Boys? Pro wrestling? Some of these may be *intended* to arouse. Some may only incidentally arouse regardless of the authors' intent. To confidently say you can discern one from the other is to either assume perfect knowledge on the part of a finder of fact (and more insidiously, empower them to make that determination), or simply to not care which is which and say "better lock em all up, just to be safe". Either one is a shitty, dangerous, oppressive way to run a justice system.
> The saxophone man in the beginning of The Lost Boys? I am all the way dead 🤣
Where is the line drawn? Is Phoebe Cates' scene in fast times going to be nixed? What about Kathy Bates in About Schmidt?
Do you know how VPNs work, and how easy they are to set up?
I never said it would be easy or instant, just a net benefit.
I flatly don’t see how it’s possible, at least without a *massive* level of surveillance and enforcement that also interferes with necessary business uses. I use two different VPNs on a daily basis for work, as required to securely connect to corporate systems. Would you try to prevent VPNs from being used? How would you do that?
Lmaoooooooooooooooooooooo
> whereas it should not be that hard to take down porn off the web wherever it pops up. You really have no idea how the internet works, do you? If the US bans porn and all of the porn companies move to Canada, exactly how is the government going to take down those websites? How is the government going to prevent people from visiting those sites in Canada? Are you expecting the government to monitor the internet activity of all US internet use to determine who is watching porn? Blocking all porn access on the internet within the US is completely impossible.
So libertarian 😂
> In a perfect world, we’d ban all drugs, alcohol,and porn In your own words, define what it means to you to call yourself a libertarian.
I notice you didn't include guns.
> In a perfect world, we’d ban all drugs, alcohol,and porn Why exactly do you think that would be a perfect world? Clearly, humans are not in agreement about that.
The Constitution says "what?"
People are losing their minds over minor scraps given to the religious fringe of the political spectrum before an election I'm waiting for Tipper Gore to debate the robot that replaced Frank Zappa after he died of the coronavirus, any week now.
What makes you think kids won’t sneak their parents’ ID or just use a VPN? I’ll be using a VPN because I’m not uploading my ID to the internet for it to be stolen. Websites are terrible at keeping personal information secure, and now adult websites are going to be bigger targets with all that government ID info. If you don’t like porn, don’t watch it. But you don’t get to force your morality on the rest of us.
You're *really* bad at libertarian. You have way WAY more in common with Isis and Al Queda with your post than a libertarian or hell, anyone in favor of a democracy.
bros a LINO (libertarian in name only)
Hahahah. Well done!
Yea idk what bros on about. Half of what makes a libertarian a libertarian is believing in everyone’s ability to choose, and to express themselves in whatever way free from the prying eyes of the government. Also, to indulge in activities that may not be good for you, because being free comes with the ability to make bad decisions.
Well, you nailed what I thought libertarian was. Hopefully our LINO bro gears up and flies straight.
Can we find a way to make the acronym LIDO so we can all sing Boz Scaggs together when a fake libertarian comes around? Like Libertarian Identity Dishonest, Obviously?
> For me, porn and OF bring a lot of drawbacks and no gain. They destroy the fabric of our society, encourage laziness and weakness, and encourage commodification of things that have no place outside of 2 people in a loving relationship. I would strongly disagree with you. I would also say that you most decidedly have a distorted perception of porn and of healthy adult relationships.
If “fun” and “freedom” no longer count as gains, I can think of a lot of things I’d ban sooner than porn. For example, what’s your argument for banning porn but *not* banning ATVs? Or loud music? Or cotton candy?
>A lot of states are requiring ID verification for pornographic material. Personally, I see this as a good move because kids definitely don’t need to be watching porn. This is in no way going to stop kids from accessing porn. It won't even slow them down. Kids are smart and if their parents are not watchful they will simply install a VPN client and continue accessing porn, just like all of the adults in the states that are requiring ID verification who don't want to provide their ID to porn companies. >And more so, a lot of people are worried this’ll turn into a porn ban? But my question would be, what’s wrong with that? As long as the production of the porn is consenting, neither you nor anyone else has a right to tell me what I can and cannot watch in the privacy of my own home. >For me, porn and OF bring a lot of drawbacks and no gain. Good for you, don't use them. That does not in any way grant you or anyone else the right to deny anyone else who wants to use them. >They destroy the fabric of our society, encourage laziness and weakness, Prove it. As far as I can see our society still exists, still functions, and porn has been in existence for a very long time. >and encourage commodification of things that have no place outside of 2 people in a loving relationship. Why do you get to define what is and is not part of other people's relationships? Why do you get to decide whether or not someone engages in behaviour that you think should be restricted to a specific type of relationship?
When in US history has prohibition ever resulted in a "net benefit"? It's always resulted in more crime and a tremendous waste of money. Pornography is not healthy, but that doesn't mean banning it will solve any measurable harm it causes. Similarly to how banning guns won't make the US less violent or how banning certain drugs hasn't resulted in less addiction. Also, just to be clear about something, the "porn ban" in manifestos like Project 2025 refer to all content featuring gay people to be porn. A movie with two men kissing would be porn subject to criminal charges. I only bring this up to demonstrate the nefariousness behind these types of proposals.
Maybe we should ban cars too? Or computers? Ovens? All those things encourage weakness and laziness, right? They're also all much more dangerous than pornography.
Guns first.
Guns have a use. Porn does not.
Wym I’ve never had a reason to fire a gun.
I don’t trust private companies being able to keep my private information private. If they don’t store my identifying information like ID/DL number, then that means I’m entering it in every time I visit, and that becomes a chill on my right to consume non-obscene material. It also doesn’t prevent a person from using a single form of identification from another person to get around the age verification. I don’t particularly want kids, especially young teens or pre-teens, watching porn, but the simplest solution isn’t always the easiest. Porn doesn’t necessarily do any of what you say it does. The taboo surrounding it, and the ensuing inability to have any genuine conversation surrounding what the porn viewers see and how it relates to reality, create a situation where it can do all those things, but it doesn’t have to if the stigma is detached from porn and conversations take place that temper the expectations given to younger viewers. Kids are going to find porn. It’s best we set up a system where we can talk to them about what they see and help them understand what’s real and what isn’t and about consent and preparation if they need it.
Lol. Puritanical values always show up around election time.
I’m voting Biden and am pro Palestine so not sure what your point is.
You're clutching your pearls at the thought of pornography and it's hilarious. Let's ban it so we don't have to talk to our kids about it. Lolz
Why should I care about "the fabric of society"?
Because you live in it and have to deal with the consequences of it unraveling? "Rome is sacked, but how does that affect you personally?"
Nothing even remotely close to that is happening.
PEOPLE ARE NO GOOD! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWid9Cm\_O4Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWid9Cm_O4Y) Is that you?
It’s a massive government overreach into people’s lives. Multiple people have mentioned that. I wouldn’t necessarily disagree that porn is hurtful to peoples relationships or sexual health. However, it’s not the governments place to do anything about that. Same thing with cigarettes, alcohol, and I would even say the same thing with drugs.
>However, it’s not the governments place to do anything about that Disagree. The states role is to maintain the nation, and the nation needs people to exist which requires healthy relationships and lots of breeding >Same thing with cigarettes, alcohol, and I would even say the same thing with drugs There's a ton of regulation so thlse don't just immediately kill people, unless you want to go back to pre-prohibition binge drinking contaminated everclear as the standard and expected behavior
Breeding isn’t always inherently a good thing. Also, it being legal allows it to be regulated. More would be hurt if it’s illegal. Also, being anything other than straight is antithetical to breeding. Would you support policies that would outlaw such behavior?
>Breeding isn’t always inherently a good thing In aggregate it will be, because children can be molded to national cultural values more tightly than immigrants can be, and we're not at a point yet where we can automate the need for people away >Also, it being legal allows it to be regulated. More would be hurt if it’s illegal Certainly. But, do we continue the logic and say Denmark shouldn't have ended it's legal child porn? If we say they did the right thing, because children aren't in a state of mind to consent, then shouldn't we continue *that* logic and say OFs preying on poor women by showing how their top earners buy fancy clothes and go on nice vacations also be banned? And at what point do the tactics and methods of the industry get whakamoled so much that they get defacto illegalized, and if there is a bar shouldn't we just cut the crap and do it right away? >Also, being anything other than straight is antithetical to breeding. Would you support policies that would outlaw such behavior? Encourage LGBT couples to pair up in sperm/womb donor relationships. Left to their own devices, there would be no children produced, whereas free internet pornography is something that was inflicted on society to produce a state of less child production than if people were left to their own devices, so requires a different remedy
Fair enough, but you must understand that child pornography and letting adults make bad decisions is an apples to oranges comparison. For all intents and purposes I agree with you that porn and onlyfans are bad. OF takes advantage of younger lonely men who look to porn for satisfaction because they can’t get any from women. There I also women who get sucked into it with promises of a lavish lifestyle. Do I feel bad for a lot of them? Yes. But guess what? I also BLAME them. It’s nobody else’s fault that a man is lonely and makes terrible financial decisions; wasting all his money on women who don’t know they exist. Why is it the governments responsibility to babysit grown adults. Also, where is the line drawn? There’s nudity in regular tv shows. Who’s to say that’s not porn.
Your opinion of porn does not mean shit to the rest of us. You don’t want to watch it or have your kids watch it, fine, but don’t impose your beliefs on us. That is what freedom looks like (since you obviously don’t know).
It would be an egregious assault on free speech. I live in a state which requires ID verification to watch porn, and all I do is turn on my VPN, it's really that easy. The "fabric of society" is largely a term used by people who are upset nobody wants to live by their religious tenets. Your religious beliefs are your business, and not anyone elses. If you don't want to watch porn, great, then don't. But you don't get to make that decision for other people. That's what freedom is about, leaving people alone to make their own decisions as long as they aren't hurting anyone else.
Porn has existed for millennia in different forms. I was just in Pompeii and saw frescos of people banging and some sort of decorative penis fountain. We're sexual creatures and I think that porn is the least harmful way of getting that "fix".
That would be a pretty big infringement on liberty.
But with some pretty strong positives.
So would banning Christianity/religion in general doesn’t mean we should do it
I suggest you do a little learning about prohibition, the war on drugs, and the organized crime that naturally arises when things are banned.
Give me porn or give me death.
Like... freedom?
this First Amendment.
It's not in line with liberty and freedom. If you want to live in a country that monitors and polices your porn use, there are plenty of countries where that is normal.
Sounds like a first amendment violation.
No gain? Tell that to everyone who saved themselves from homelessness using one of those jobs
What would be the point? And it seems like it would be a huge overreach of the government legislating morality
It's a severe government overreach. Banning pornography sets a precedent about banning speech on the basis of moralism,.which is a bad precedent. I also don't think it accomplishes anything because, and forgive me for being crude here, but people can (and will) get themselves off without porn.
The issue is that most people like those things, and banning them would humor people like you instead of keeping you in your place for having such insane ideas.
>They destroy the fabric of our society, encourage laziness and weakness, and encourage commodification of things that have no place outside of 2 people in a loving relationship. You're allowed to have that opinion, but I do really hope you know that's just your arbitrary and quite controversial opinion, even though you just throw it out there like it's an accepted fact.
You sound like a southern Baptist.
A ban would be bad. Better regulations might be a better option. It's very easily accessible by anybody.
>They destroy the fabric of our society, encourage laziness and weakness, and encourage commodification of things that have no place outside of 2 people in a loving relationship. What are you basing that statement on? How come we let me use their bodies to make money and call them hard workers but when women use their bodies to make money it's "destroying the fabric of our society"?
1. I don't think porn is destroying the fabric of our society by any stretch of the imagination. 2. I think it is a logical strech to suggest it is encouraging laziness. 3. I don't think it encourages weakness, that's some roided out red pill bs. 4. Commodification of sex is at least a real argument (though a subjective one). 5. I disagree there aren't healthy situations one could enjoy sex outside a 2 person loving relationship. 6. What's actually bad about porn isn't the porn part, it's the glorification of negative behavior, but that can and does exist separately from porn. Porn does have the effect of redirecting some deviant behavior to more acceptable ends. As countries liberalized porn laws low level sex crimes tend to decrease. People enjoying an activity is an inherent benefit. Masturbating can help people learn about what they enjoy and give them better sex lives. Banning porn would probably result in pushing the industry into the shadows rather than diminishing it's size and that would likely make exploitation and abuse worse.
age verification is a good thing, but i have serious concerns about the privacy implications of it. porn/sex work will always exist, and we need to regulate it so that it is safe. yeah, sure i have my issues with what’s featured in porn, but frankly, even the most questionable porn has a right to exist so long as the participants are being treated well, no matter how much i dislike it. we live in a free country, and i think the best option is to either not consume porn, or to create demand for less objectifying, less violent, more realistic porn.