Re: Thoughtcrime (Re: My War)

[ichudov@Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home)]

Lucky Green wrote:
> Let us assume that it is unethical to force children to participate  in the
> production of child pornography. (For the benefit of Kent and the more
> ignorant people on this list, I will state that I firmly believe this to be
> true, despite the fact that doing so should be irrelevant for the argument.)
> 
> Furthermore, let us assume that there are a number of individuals who enjoy
> looking at hard core child pornography.
> 
> The question then is: does going after the distributors provide a benefit
> to the children being (potentially) used for such pictures?

> The answer is clearly no. By limiting the distribution of an individual
> picture, you increase the total number of pictures required to satisfy
> market demand. That means more children will be required to meet demand.

How do you justify that "clearly"?

I think that your analysis is incorrect.

This is a supply and demand situation. It is very simple to show (as any
microeconomics textbook does) that a tax on the product reduces the amount
of product sold and produced.

Since a unit of product is probably one picture of a child, there are
less units produced if they are taxed.

In the case of child porn, all this persecution is a form of tax, although
not very quantifiable.

igor


> Thus, by going after the distributors, Se7en causes more children to be
> violated by child pornographers.
> 
> The only question that remains is: how can he live with this?
> 
> Logic != base emotions,
> 
> --Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.
> 
>   Put a stake through the heart of DES! Join the quest at
>   http://www.frii.com/~rcv/deschall.htm
> 



	- Igor.