If you’re multi-tasking, click here for an audio version:

People watch a lot of porn in this world. In the U.S. alone, 40 million folk regularly visit porn sites, $16.9 billion is lost in business productivity, and 2.5 billion daily emails sent or received contain porn. That’s a lot of porn, and it is unlikely that these numbers will dwindle anytime soon. In fact, every second more than 28,000 people – and growing – are watching pornography on the Internet.

Suffice to say, many people are addicted to pornography, and there is an epidemic sweeping the nation. But this isn’t anything new.We have always produced and consumed this material: from the ancient sculptures of a man and a woman having sexual intercourse to the 1899 softcore erotic French motion picture The Bridegroom’s Dilemma starring Louise Willy, a diverse array of porn has seeped into our culture.

And, though it’s unfortunate to concede, pornography is here to stay. That is unless one conservative commentator’s proposal gains momentum nationwide and becomes law of the land.

On Thursday, Daily Wire columnist Matt Walsh published an op-ed “5 Reasons Why Porn Should Be Banned,” citing a New York Times column that makes the case for prohibiting X-rated content. His five reasons were:

  • The industry is prostitution.
  • It feeds the sex trafficking industry.
  • Inappropriate material destroys children.
  • Porn makes you less free.
  • Laws are crucial.

Considering that a significant portion of Americans lose their spouses, jobs, and money because of their immense ingesting of insidious imagery, should the U.S. government implement a porn ban?

State Regulating Morality

Across the Land of the Free, numerous state and local governments have taxed, restricted, or prohibited our so-called sins (alcohol, tobacco, drugs). In other words, self-righteous politicians have attempted to impose their benevolence on their constituents, regulate morality, and criminalize what they deem to be immoral.

Is this something the government should even be in the business of doing?

The focal point of the libertarian philosophy is the non-aggression principle, or NAP. It dictates that you can imbibe anything you want in your body or partake in any act as long as you’re not using force against your neighbor or imposing your will on others.

Let’s be honest: if our esteemed officials, who aren’t exactly the paragons of rectitude, adopted this position, the country would be in better shape.

No matter how repugnant we might find another person’s choices and overall lifestyle, we should never try to police morality and institute virtue. The government can lead by example – stop stealing the fruits of the public’s labor and cease all the corruption – but it must refrain from interfering in the personal behaviors of the citizenry.

Plus, where in the constitution does it give the anointed the power to prohibit porn?

A Right-Wing Nanny State

Conservatives scoff and chuckle at the left dictating what is acceptable and what is reprehensible. Although the rules of the game vary from day to day, the general theme is nannyism.

If you’re white, you’re not permitted to let your children dress as The Black Panther. If you’re black, you must think from a liberal persuasion. If you’re a woman, you’re required to support female political candidates, unless they’re Republican. If you’re a Christian male, you’re demanded to keep your mouth closed on the topic of abortion.

Essentially, every day on Twitter, on blogs, or on television, the left commands certain segments of the population to behave, speak, and reason the way they want you to – though the very act of thinking oftentimes violates groupthink.

What Walsh is proposing is a form of right-wing nannyism. How does this differentiate from left-wing nannyism, the very thing that conservatives, libertarians, and free-thinkers object to?

Matt Walsh

The right of yesterday shrieked about various elements of the counterculture. Today, the social justice warriors have accepted the responsibility of being the collective group to whine, moan, and complain about the counterculture. There is indeed a reason why leftists are irked when Paul Joseph Watson alludes to this; because they know it is a correct assessment.

Matt Walsh espouses a lot of ideas that can and should be celebrated and embraced by many: the nuclear family, abortion, gun ownership, and principles that were omnipresent prior to the 1970s. He may have the right intentions about pornography – it is prevalent, it is graphic, and it is destroying lives – but if we outlaw porn, then why not social media? Television? CNN? These are all harmful for your physical, mental, and emotional health. This is another case of paving the road to hell, where snowflakes melt, with the best intentions.

Do you support a ban on pornography? Let us know in the comments section!

~

Liberty Nation is part of a community of like-minded thinkers.  For reliable news and commentary, our go-to sources are WhatFinger.com and CNSNews.com

If you would like to republish this content, click here.

Andrew Moran

Economics Correspondent at LibertyNation.com

Andrew has written extensively on economics, business, and political subjects for the last decade. He also writes about economics at Economic Collapse News and commodities at EarnForex.com. He is the author of "The War on Cash." You can learn more at AndrewMoran.net.

 

 

Guest comments are moderated before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours.

If you register for an account your next post will automatically appear.

 

Economics Correspondent