The central issue tackled in this thesis is whether there is room for legitimate restrictions upon pornography and extreme right political organisations' racist hate speech; whether such restrictions can be made without breaching generally accepted liberal rights and within a democratic context. Nick May 23, at It seems indisputable to me that this is the case, although, yes, one could quibble about this or that point or about who is more extreme. Even in feudalism, there were already guilds, who had productive property as well. To switch from a rule to a standard is of course to accept a higher cost of decision for a presumably lower error cost. You might want to look up a set of principles called The Porter Principles, which are often taught in business schools, which are all about maximizing profit by overcoming the free market, often with the help of government by, for example, creating high barriers to entry. Much depends on circumstances of time and place.
Pornography, Patriarchy and Liberalism: Re-reading Andrea Dworkin
The pro-sex movement is often seen as the more progressive view point while the anti-pornography has been called outdated. Nor is consent relevant: These legal fictions are given huge competitive advantages against real live people, whom supposedly conservatives care so deeply about. Paul May 22, at 1: They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
New Left Project | Pornography, Patriarchy and Liberalism: Re-reading Andrea Dworkin
Initially you tell the students "the facts show significant harm" and get one vote; then, you say "they know pornography harms" and get a different vote. Paul, again you get to have it both ways. The best you or anyone else have come up with is a definition espoused in specifically Catholic literature that most American conservatives have never read. I agree with Chesterton that it is impossible for social liberals to be tolerant, for if you are indifferent or in agreement with some action or behaviour — say gay marriage — that is not tolerance but rather permissiveness. If not, then our dislike for the person, his products or his success is a small price to pay for real economic opportunity and freedom. Your slanted, ad hominem diatribe is classic liberal argumentation:
Tying these cases to capitalism by use of the term individualism is sophistry; capitalism need not be individualistic in any sense that is connected with such behavior. We must look at what benefits the most people. Powers goes on to say: John Hinshaw May 22, at And while individuals had their own opinions, some opposed, some supportive, the mainstream views within every Political Philosophy was that Pornography was bad.