A Call to Ban Porn, or How Left Right Neo-Puritanism is More Alike than Different

Matt Walsh, writing for the conservative site Daily Wire, imagines he’s come up with the definitive reason why porn should be outlawed and prohibited by the state.  I’m going to take you through his five main points, and end by showing you that he is not that different from the statist progressives he imagines he vehemently opposes.

1) Porn is prostitution.

Prostitution is illegal in every state save one, yet pornography is legal in every state.

…..

Yeah, this would be the “but it’s against the law argument.  Never mind that he will walk through a long-winded explanation of why porn is prostitution, the argument is shot down because “it’s against the law” is not actually an argument, it’s an appeal to authority.  It’s circular logic at it’s best.  It should be illegal because it’s illegal.  That, sir, is not an argument.

2) Porn feeds the sex trafficking industry.

There is little sense in trying to fight sex trafficking while at the same time defending porn–ography as a sacred right. The link between the two is unmistakable and should be self-evident to any thinking person. Sex traffickers routinely force their slaves into pornography.

…..

This is the “but this action leads to another action, that leads to another action, that leads to a bad action” argument.

Matt Walsh is allegedly a conservative, but here he sounds like a good old fashioned statist progressive, always assuring that they prevent us from making bad decisions by penalizing any action that might secondarily, or to even more removed degrees, lead to a bad action,

If you oppose gun control because it penalizes everyone for the actions of a few, then you should feel the same way about porn, unless you’re insane enough to believe that most porn is the fruit of sex trafficking (it’s not, it’s not even close).

3) Porn destroys children.

An American child is first introduced to hardcore internet porn at the age of 11, on average.

…..

Children being exposed to violent video games, vulgar movies also affect them negatively.  Should we ban these things as well?  This, again, reveals what a true progressive Matt Walsh is, that he, like them, wants to prohibit anything from everyone that might have a negative effect on someone.

4) Porn makes you less free.

There is nothing freeing about porn. A “free society” is not one that must, or should, feature easily accessed pornography. Porn kills freedom because it enslaves the viewer to his passions.

…..

Define freedom Matt.  Define free society.  You can’t.

You’re speaking in vague platitudes, a sound and fury signifying nothing.

You see, Matt, nothing enslaves the viewer, save for direct coercive force, or threat of coercive force.  If the viewer is taken in by porn, then the viewer has CHOSEN to be taken in by porn.

Porn is not a sentient being threatening the viewer with violence.  It is a sensory invitation that the viewer can reject or not reject.  This type of thinking reduces human beings to helpless, unaccountable victims, which, again, is more in keeping with statist progressivism than what conservatism claims to be about.

5) Laws matter.

The law is a teacher. People are more likely to accept something as normal and moral if the law treats it as such….

…..

Matt Walsh reveals what a true worshiper of the state, his real god, he actually is, with this one. It is, in essence, a repeat of the first point, an appeal to authority.

He demonstrates a sycophantic worldview in i relation to the state, imagining that laws are somehow born from some objective foundation of morality, and that, as such, laws can be morality creators.

But, no, they cannot.  Laws are simply the arbitrary desires of the governing.  They reflect how they wish the governed to behave.  To be sure, the further a law is from the prevailing “moral” sentiment of the governed, the more difficult that law will be to enforce, but law does not make the man, man makes the law.

This fifth point, again, establishes this ‘conservative Christian’ as nothing more than a statist progressive (with one holy god, the state) attempting to use the state to socially engineer people to reflect his morality.

This accusation of using the state to socially engineer people has long been used (and rightly so) by conservatives to attack the statist progressive agenda.  Apparently, if Matt Walsh is any reflection of actual conservatism, what conservatives really mean is they’re against the progressive social engineering program, not the conservative social engineering program.

Articles like this should serve to remind you, especially those who might find more issues with leftist statists over rightist statists, the more you get to understand the particular lists of proscription and reward, punishment and promotion, of the leftist statist versus the rightist statist, the more you understand how similar the two are.

They have in their core this neo-puritanical strain that assumes their morality is the only right morality and it cannot emerge voluntarily, it must be beat into the poor sheep who don’t know any better, beat into them by a strong state.

The only real difference between the two is what’s on that proscription list, what’s on that reward list, what’s on that punishment list, what’s on that promotion list.

At the end of the day, both of them are afraid of the same thing, competition, and they mean to shut it down, by any means necessary, for the good of the children.

About Paul Gordon 2928 Articles
Paul Gordon is the publisher and editor of iState.TV. He has published and edited newspapers, poetry magazines and online weekly magazines. He is the director of Social Cognito, an SEO/Web Marketing Company. You can reach Paul at pg@istate.tv

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Archlogos - February 23rd, 2018 - Episode 004

Comments are closed.