On Feb 22, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Kyle Waters wrote:
Richard K Miller wrote:
But there were other issues on which Pete and I differed. Two that
came up were internet pornography and social security. He's in favor
of offering porn filtering to consumers who want it, but no
government
involvement. I, OTOH, think the negative societal effects of
pornography are big enough that it ought to be treated more like a
drug. (I.e., the government doesn't let people enjoy cocaine in the
privacy of their own homes, nor child porn for that matter.) On
social security, he seemed apt to keep the program and other
"entitlements", while I'd be apt to get rid of it or completely
privatize it.
This is what I love about conservatives. People can protect
themselves
from poverty but not from porn. So the government needs to raise my
taxes to create ineffective filters(John Dougal is an idiot) so people
can't harm themselves with porn, but government needs to stop giving
money to poor people because people starving to death is not harful to
society.
I haven't been able to follow this thread in real time (so maybe I
should let it go at this point?) but I'll just point out that I'm not
so much interested in what people do privately as I am in what spills
over into society. And I think there is some evidence that
pornography addition has negative consequences on society,
notwithstanding anecdotal observations posted here. Serial killers
Gary Bishop and Ted Bundy both cited pornography as an influence on
their behaviors. Obviously they are the extreme outliers, but the
much lesser "crimes" include disrespect for women and marital
infidelity.
I agree that poverty is also a societal ill that needs fixing. But I
believe my own private philanthropy will do far more good than any
government program using the same amount of my dollars, simply
because private enterprises are more efficient than bureaucracies.
On that note, it's probably irrational to think the government could
efficiently administer any program to combat the ills of
pornography. In reality, any concerned citizen or parent would
probably be better off finding a "private" (technological?) solution
to that problem. Anyone concerned about government intervention on
this issue can rest assured that I think we're far from erring on the
side of censorship. But I still think it's a societal ill, and I'm
willing to stand by that position even if the facts aren't
overwhelmingly conclusive yet. (Call it intuition?)
Anyway, thank you all for your thoughts on this.
Richard
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
