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 a 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 in 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.