The liberal magazine The American Prospect has uncovered a nasty little conspiracy going on in the some of these United States. In the May 2009 issue, Dana Goldstein points to legislative initiatives in California, New York, Florida, Texas, and Washington state through measures ranging from a "25-percent sales tax on X-rated movies to a $5 'pole tax' on visits to strip clubs."
The Prospect argues that, because of the First Amendment, such "measures are usually defeated by little more than gales of laughter," but that, even so, the threat to access to pornography is real. An extra five dollars to rent a pornographic DVD, the Prospect says, will cause the consumer to decline to make the transaction.
The same thing is the case, the Prospect continues, with proposed California regulations about condom usage in pornographic films. "If the Golden State ever did require condoms in skin flicks, the porn industry would likely pack up and leave town," the article contends. "And since the adult industry accounts for about 50,000 jobs in California, only 10 percent of which are acting in the films, the economic crisis probably precludes the state from such moral posturing."
So, high taxes hurt the producers of goods, making it less likely that they will produce these goods for the public and intense regulation will cause businesses to pick up and move elsewhere, thereby hurting the lower-income workers dependent on these businesses?
It seems Arthur Laffer and Jack Kemp are still alive and well, and on the left wing. At least, that is, as it applies to this one "industry."
While you’re right to note the liberal hands-off attitude echoes pro-business conservatives, there’s an important unintended consequence to taxation.
Special taxation gives the industry more civic standing as a contributor to state revenues. This creates a greater government interest in its growth. Industry lobbyists and public relations will be sure to exploit that tax, should it ever come to pass.
Considering the number of jobs in the industry right now, does California’s government help lobby against obscenity restrictions in other states and at the federal level? Are California state law schools’ First Amendment professors adjuncts to the industry?
>> An extra five dollars to rent a pornographic DVD, the Prospect says, will cause the consumer to decline to make the transaction. <<
IOW, this smut is not worth 5 measly bucks? Or if that is not what they meant, maybe they meant it as a desperate denial of the strength of porn addiction.
Taxing the traditional outlets of porn use will simply drive people to the cheaper, sleazier (and much less regulated) outlets online.
“Of course the whole matter is silly; that’s the point. Sniffing around porn under cover of a chance to take a poke at liberals, with yet another false analogy.”
Hogwash. Libs are as hypocritical about porn as they are about tobacco. If the latter were as bad as they all say it is, they’d seek to ban it. Instead, realizing that they can’t do without the money acquired by its “regulation,” they simply tax the crap out of it, all the while offering pious nonsense about smoke-out days, smoke-free zones, etc. Of course, if everyone really did quit, they’d be out a ton of money. The “addiction” angle is used only to beat up on Big Tobacco (which, BTW, I have little respect for), and to cry about the health costs related to tobacco use.
With porn, as Clifford said above, libs refuse to see the cultural and societal damage done by it. Five bucks may make a difference to the casual porn user, but the addict won’t care. Or, like Seth says, he’ll find a cheaper outlet.
I can see how libs would be ambivalent about taxing porn, as sex seems to be the only thing that they haven’t found a way to tax yet. They can’t tax condoms, as price increases will cause less use, resulting in more ‘unsafe sex.’ Yet they can’t do anything that would lead to discouragement of sexual activity, as that’s the underlying driving force of the movement.
What to do? What to do?
Cyranorox: “We need an exchange of nicknames – in parallel to ‘libs’, I’ll call the other side con-men, sometimes var. neo-conmen.”
Bring back Stuart Koehl!
“That canard about sex being the driving force… suggests great strength in the libs.”
Strength to fornicate? Yes. Strength to reproduce? Try again. Do you know of any modern liberal movements that do not include the notion of “sexual liberation,” i.e., the separation of sex from procreation? That’s been a major focus of the thing since the French Revolution.
“The con-men believe in absolute ownership of their money”
Really? I daresay you’d have quite a few conservatives here, including this one, who’d disagree with that caricature.
“Porn addiction is a way of talking, an analogy”
Again, really? Been to an SA meeting lately? Ever had any interaction with a porn addict?
“Odd that you blame libs about tobacco”
I’m not blaming them, just pointing out the hypocrisy of their stance. I don’t smoke and never have, and have no personal axe to grind on the issue one way or the other, besides my objection to the nanny-state expansion of gummint.
“Libs would, as with tobacco, tax and regulate this commodity.”
Tell us something we don’t know. Is there any commodity they DON’T want to tax and regulate?
Robertus meus, memento: Troglodytae non pascendae.
=^)
The tone of the discussion is getting out of hand. Please stop the name-calling about “libs” and “cons” and argue the issues instead.
Tony,
I admit you got me – had to use the latin translator and then when I saw what it spit out – I groaned!
Kamilla
>>> What to do? What to do? <<<
My guess is that after uncooperative churches are stripped of their tax-exempt status, and then stripped of their properties, a special poll tax will be placed on dissenting priests, ministers, etc. and their congregations. And then…
Well, something has to be done to help save America’s struggling porn industry!
I will refrain from using “libs” as shorthand for liberals. No intense was offended. Like referring to postmodernists as “pomo’s,” it’s just so much…shorter.
Rob G.: “No intense was offended. Like referring to postmodernists as “pomo‘s,” it’s just so much…shorter.”
Pomo rhymes with ….
“Pomo rhymes with …. ”
‘Nostromo’?
‘Schelomo’?
Tony Romo?
Perry Como?
Look at that: a little moderation and we get high culture debate in classical languages! Kudos to the Mere Comments team!
Major-domo
No more to roam-o
Seltzer, Bromo-
My daughter’s friend MoMo
. . .
Thank you very much for planting this in my head.
Speaking of classical languages, the Greek for “sexual immorality” is pi-omicron-rho-nu. (Not to mention, if puerility were pudenda, then this thread would be porn.)
Mario Cuomo?
Salvatore Bellomo?
Cyrano, perhaps it would be more enlightening (and undoubtedly briefer) for you to list the commodities/products/services you DON’T want to see taxed and regulated.
As one of the characters on ‘Prairie Home Companion’ once said, “Liberals want to turn America into one big Montessori School.”
I’ve never heard of the “Murdstone State,” and don’t even know what it refers to. Sorry.
“Mr Murdstone, stepfather to David Copperfield, noted for his insistence on ‘firmness’.”
Oh, THAT Murdstone! I didn’t realize modern liberals were such Dickens fans. I thought it might have been a Harry Potter reference.
“The PHC comment was a joke, you know.”
Undoubtedly. But it hit the nail on the head. I wish a conservative would have thought of it.
You strangely (or perhaps not so strangely) misunderstand the nanny-state description. It is liberals who believe that “they know better” and thus are able to burden the rest of us with womb-to-the-tomb care/control, all for our own good, of course. A reading of Kalb’s ‘The Tyranny of Liberalism’ is in order, I think.
I see that I made a major error above, using the phrase “womb-to-the-tomb” in regards to liberalism’s penchant for extending care/control over the human person. “Cradle-to-grave” would be a much better description; liberalism’s care, of course, does not extend to those in the womb.