"The idea that you could openly sell things that help women achieve orgasm is pretty new."

Interview with Phil Harvey, author of Show Time and head of the Adam and Eve catalog.

"Sex toys, most of them, are designed to help women achieve orgasm," says writer, entrepreneur, and philanthropist Phil Harvey. "The idea that you could openly sell things that help women achieve orgasm is pretty new."

Harvey runs the adult-toy company Adam & Eve and is the head of DKT International, a nonprofit that promotes family planning and HIV/AIDS prevention in underdeveloped countries.

An ardent libertarian (and contributor to Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason TV), Harvey is also the author of several books, including 2001's The Government vs. Erotica, which documented his precedent-setting legal battles with state and federal law enforcement over the right to sell adult materials to willing customers.

His new book is Show Time, a psychological thriller that follows a group of reality TV participants struggling to survive a brutal winter on a remote island in Lake Superior. By turns reminiscent of The Hunger Games, Survivor, and LostShow Time is a wry and gripping commentary on voyeurism, mass media, and self-destruction.

Harvey sat down recently with Nick Gillespie to discuss why sex and violence will always be integral to the arts and how Americans have become more comfortable in their pursuit of sensual pleasure.

About 14 minutes.

Interview by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Amanda Winkler. 

Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Now this is the kind of PM Links I'm talking about. Also, women have orgasms too?

  • A Serious Man||

    About 14 minutes.

    Story of my life.

  • Rasilio||

    With me the do :-)

  • Tim||

    "This video has been removed by the user"

    BASTARDS!

  • ||

    The idea that you could openly sell things that help women achieve orgasm

    Autographed 8"x10" glossies of me?

  • Tim||

    Prison Guard: Time for your cavity search.
    Mr. Burns: Oh, I haven't had a cavity in over forty years.
    Prison Guard: I wasn't talking about your teeth.
    Mr. Burns: Nor was I.

  • ||

    Fear and disgust don't make women orgasm, you cretin. Money does.

  • Hugh Akston||

    So that explains Warty's campaign to have his face put on the $50 bill.

  • ||

    Grant got tons of ass.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Not as much as Cleveland

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Anyone Wanna Take a Guess At Who's Mad That They Haven't Been Proposed To, Yet?

    To summarize: Venker believes men are entitled to female submission, and by not being submissive, women are waging war on them. And they, in retaliation, are refusing to marry you unladlylike monsters with your careers and opinions.

    [...]

    Still, having been warned by wingnuts over and over again that no one wants to marry a feminist, I find that my honest response to the threat is not to whip out the table and charts and history books. No, it’s more like this:


    Oh noes! I can’t find a husband?! But whose socks will I spend the rest of my life begrudgingly picking up?

    I get the feeling that being Amanda Marcotte's boyfriend is somewhat like the Hobbesian state of nature: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    D'oh! Wrong thread...

  • Big 'Orra||

    No, she needs an orgasm and will probably need to settle for mechanical assistance...

  • Brutus||

    Something diesel-powered.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Seems appropriate.

  • Paul.||

    Is she the one that makes people feel like they're being confronted by the Unabomber when she disrobes?

  • American||

    "Oh noes! I can’t find a husband?! But whose socks will I spend the rest of my life begrudgingly picking up?"
    As if THAT is why women marry. Women marry because they need to satisfy their labito.

  • ||

    You are clueless.

  • iggy||

    Yeah, women never have sex to satisfy their 'labito' before they get married.

    Sex is only to be done after marriage, with the lights off, the man on top, and with as little movement as possible.

  • American||

    I'm making fun of the idea that women don't want men and that they can simply sit back and have men do anything they want. Women are products of evolution. I don't see anything wrong with the type of society described in the second paragraph.

  • General Butt Naked||

    *Hides in here from our new republican friends*

  • General Butt Naked||

    The idea that you could openly sell things that help women achieve orgasm is pretty new.

    Do these things come with a free Reason Tee like the one in the background?

  • Raston Bot||

    my 14-year old self called to thank you for your catalog, Mr. Harvey.

  • ||

    Yeah but the net result is probably even since you have to pay for them with money, which also helps women achieve orgasm.

  • R C Dean||

    Adam and Eve adult toy company

    So heteronormative. Sad, really.

  • ||

    It's the Adam and Eve adult toy company, not Adam and Steve adult toy company!

  • ||

    "The Pat and Jesse adult toy company"

  • Delroy||

    Can't watch the video at work. Does Phil Harvey tell us the rest of the story?

  • Brutus||

    He makes the sex toy biz sound about as stimulating and exciting as selling car parts.

  • Paul.||

    "The idea that you could openly sell things that help women achieve orgasm is pretty new."

    Why would they buy something when I come free?

  • Hugh Akston||

    I think because they're more interested in how they come then how you come.

  • Enough About Palin||

    How come?

  • American||

    The phrase "race to the bottom" is usefull here. Women are evolutioary creatures, the men they are naturally attracted to are not the men who are the mnost upstanding citizens in our country.

  • Calidissident||

    Aren't women supposed to be attracted to wealthy men? Or who exactly do you have in mind?

  • American||

    They are, but they are also supposed to be attracted to the strongest, meanest, most domineering asshole in the herd.

  • Calidissident||

    And indeed, while some of those guys are the stereotypical lowlife "bad boys" many also make it to the top of certain fields (like politics)

  • Brandybuck||

    Women are attracted to the wealthy men as husbands, and attracted to scamps for diddling on the side. It's an evolutionary advantage seen in many species. Get the rich man to raise the pool boy's kids.

  • ||

    "The idea that you could openly sell things that help women achieve orgasm is pretty new."

    Actually the idea that you could openly sell anything without permission is pretty new.

  • waaminn||

    That looks like it might jsut work dude. WOw.
    www.IP-Fake.com

  • JeremyR||

    It's not like the things weren't always sold, it's just society used to be discrete about it. Mail order, unmarked shops, and so forth (calling them "marital aids"). Even the Victorians had all that stuff. Stuff we don't even have today, actually. except maybe in Japanese porn.

    I actually think the modern lack of discretion is more a sign of cultural decadence than strength.

  • ||

    Why? I prefer a culture where people mind their own business about what other people are buying. It's not like people are running around waving dildos in your face.

  • American||

    "I prefer a culture where people mind their own business about what other people are buying."
    A culture where anything goes, in other words? A culture where you can do disgusting, immoral things openly without any retaliation. That's not the culture I want. Would you be happy if your bf/gf was watching porn. I think you would. What's to stop him/her, in your society?

  • ||

    "Would you be happy if your bf/gf was watching porn."

    Uh....yeah. I dont police what others want to read/watch, and just because someone is my significant other doesnt mean I own them.

    Get over yourself American.

  • American||

    "just because someone is my significant other doesnt mean I own them."
    Throughout history being someone's "significant other DID mean you "owned them." People, especially women, weren't content merely let themselves be objects of someone else's sexual pleasure. They wanted to "own" others. Imagine yourself naked in a room with 500 other naked men and women(yes, this alluding to that). THAT is America today.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • iggy||

    I'm with American on this one. I strapped a camera to my girlfriends head so that, at all times, I can see what she sees and know that she isn't cheating on me with any of those filthy Mexicans. Furthermore, I require that she wear a chastity belt every time she leaves the house, lest the sex crazed, third world swine attempt to molest her and steal her purity.

  • American||

    When you're gf cheats on you and tells you that 'you don't own me,' you'll have only yourself to blame.

  • iggy||

    If my girlfriend cheated on me, I'd break up with her. Our relationship is conditional on neither of us sleeping with anyone else without the partner's permission. We both know this. There's a difference between having understood bounds in a relationship and claiming that you 'own' your girlfriend. There's also a difference between not liking porn yourself and claiming that people should fear 'retaliation' if they do something you think is gross.

  • American||

    Would you be angry at her? Why? You don't own her. You are not entitled to her. Of course you would be angry. This is basic biology. Yes, the difference is between having an opinion and expressing said opinion.

  • Calidissident||

    Expecting a significant other to be faithful does not mean you own her. So in your opinion, do both partners own the other? Or does it only go one way?

  • American||

    Sure, both partners "own" each other. My gf "owns" me. Why is expecting your significant other to abstain from porn thinking you "own" him/her, but expecting him/her to be faithfull to you not?

  • Calidissident||

    You're the one who brought the literal notion of ownership into this discussion. If you meant simply that one was expected to be faithful and chaste, fine, you should have been more clear, because for much of history, women were treated like property

  • Brandybuck||

    Does H&R have the technology yet to let me hide American's posts? He makes Cotton Mather look like a flaming libertine.

  • Rick Santorum||

    LOL @ the beta male feminists in this.

    "I don't OWN her! She's a self-actualized human being! Sometimes she even lets me go down on her!"

  • Calidissident||

    And the mask slips. As I suspected, immigration isn't the only issue where your authoritarianism seeps through

  • ||

    Oh...American has never worn a mask.

  • Calidissident||

    At least in my interactions with him, he's always tried to present himself as a believer in freedom and liberty, and then justified his immigration position as being necessary to preserve freedom and liberty. Here, he's not even trying to justify his position as pro-freedom

  • American||

    "Here, he's not even trying to justify his position as pro-freedom"
    Liberals like to make certain fallacious equvilacies. For example, the catholic church not wanting to pay for birth control doesn't mean the catholic church want's to ban it. You do the same thing. To you, not wanting your gf to watch porn is the same thing as wanting to making it illegal. I don't, for the record. If people want to be sexual libertines that is their right, but they won't get my respect.

  • iggy||

    American Earlier: "(Do you want) A culture where you can do disgusting, immoral things openly without any retaliation."

    So earlier you said that you think other people should fear 'retaliation' for immoral acts, but now you don't care if they're sexual libertines? You're a liar.

  • American||

    I was talking about culture. Cultrual retaliation. I fear 'retaliantion' if I don't do my job right. Does that mean I fear that I will be thrown in prison? I didn't say I didn't care if they were sexual libertines. I said it is their right to be. I said that they will not have my respect, implying that I DO care.

  • iggy||

    So what if you meant cultural retaliation rather than imprisonment? Do you think cultural retaliation doesn't hurt people? Tell that to people back in the day who lost their jobs because of cultural retaliation. Tell that to gay kids who kill themselves because they're bullied.

    Shunning people because of their sexual preferences has a long and storied history of destroying lives just as readily as prisons do.

  • American||

    My god. Are you a libertarian? Someone thinking gay people are gross is not the equvialent of throwing people in prison. I was responding to Calidissident's claim that I was not "pro-freedom." There is nothing anti-freedom" about not liking pornography.

  • iggy||

    Am I libertarian? What? Is there some purity test I'm not aware of where I'm not allowed to think it's wrong to culturally shun somebody for doing something sexual that I think is gross?

    So I should think that bullying gay kids is okay or else I'm not a libertarian? What the fuck does libertarianism have to do with any of this?

  • American||

    Saying that a person acting freely is morally equivalent to coercing someone into prison, is not a libertarian thing to say. If you think people should have no right to say "hatefull" things like "faggot," that is also not libertarian.

  • American||

    And a for the "bullied gay kids commiting suicide," if they are commiting suicide, then there is something mentally wrong with them. Depression is a tragedy that some people would like to exploit politically. That doesn't exonerate the bullies, but to say they are responsible for the suicides, no they are not. They are boys being boys, like boys always have.

  • Fluhdoten1||

    libertarianism is a value set for govt.

    your relationship with your gf would not be controlled/regulated under libertarian law.

    you would be free to banish her from your life is she cheated.

    in a fair world, ppl can break up for porn, cheating, or any other reason.

    its sad you are blinded by freedom to do immorality so that you think those in their life are bounded (no liberty) to not retaliate.

    dont you think ppl should be able to retaliate by breaking up?

    your scope of liberty is so narrow it only covers the evil doer and not the victims. victims gotta toe the line in your world.

  • Calidissident||

    You said (paraphrasing) "What's to stop your gf/bf from watching porn in your culture?" If you don't think it should be illegal, what exactly are you saying? It's pretty easy to be discrete about watching porn, so how is cultural pressure going to stop them? Not to mention, some people just don't care what others think. And there is plenty of sexual deviance in culturally repressed places

  • American||

    You're point, to paraphrase, is "how will having a culture that does not look kindly on porn lead to less consumption of porn." The same can be said about religion. How will growing up in a catholic family make it's children catholic when they are adults? Maybe because a society is not simply about "rational self-intrest." The catholic believes what he believes. True, some people don't care what others think. But most do. True, there is sexual deviance in "culturally repressed" places, but none comparing to what we have in "liberated" places. Why use the term "cultrually-repressed?" What's wrong with repressing certain things? In our society repress "racism." Is that a bad thing?

  • Rick Santorum||

    Lol, libertarians are so retarded. YOU OBVIOUSLY WANT TO BAN FREE SPEECH BECAUSE YOU THINK YOUR GIRLFRIEND SHOULDN'T WATCH PORN.

  • American||

    I am an authoritarian and you are too. You believe in libertarianism, right? You believe that buisness owners have a right to have power of their property and their workers. In other words, "authority." The workers have to do as they are told, that sounds like authority. Ask any child what the word means and they will say "being in charge of something or someone." A parent has authority. A scientist has authority. You may define authority only in coercive terms. If you do, say so, because the rest of society does not.

  • Calidissident||

    Authoritarianism, especially when referenced on a libertarian website, pretty clearly refers to a political philosophy. But you knew that already

  • American||

    There are no card-carrying authoritarians. It is a term only used by it's detractors, ususally in opposition to cultural conservatism. Like the way you used it. If you deifne authoritarianism as the polar opposite of libertarianism, then how am I "authoritarian" by not wanting a decadent culture? As I said before, if people want to be sexual libertines that is their right, but they won't get my respect.

  • ||

    And we should care about who you respect because...?

  • Rasilio||

    Not only don't I care if my wife was watching porn, I wouldn't care if she banging other people while she was doing it, as long as she was having fun, taking precautions to prevent disease. And yes, I want a society where disguisting and immoral things happen openly without retaliation, as long as those things do not infringe on the rights of others.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Not only don't I care if my wife was watching porn, I wouldn't care if she banging other people while she was doing it, as long as she was having fun, taking precautions to prevent disease.

    Well, if you're a swinger, send her over to my place!

  • Rick Santorum||

    I want a society where disguisting and immoral things happen openly without retaliation

    That society won't last, you imbecile. But at least you'll have a good time fucking dogs before your cultural destruction.

  • iggy||

    "A culture where you can do disgusting immoral things openly without any retaliation?"

    Who decides what's disgusting and immoral? And what 'retaliation?' Do you realize how much of a fascist you sound like right now?

  • Calidissident||

    Fascist beliefs from American, if you're familiar with his posts, shouldn't be surprising

  • American||

    I was talking about culture. Cultrual retaliation. I fear 'retaliantion' if I don't do my job right. Does that mean I fear that I will be thrown in prison? I didn't say I didn't care if they were sexual libertines. I said it is their right to be. I said that they will not have my respect, implying that I DO care.

  • Fluhdoten1||

    retaliation from equally free actors.

    you wouldnt expect to cheat on your wife and demand her to not divorce you.

    you only want freedom for sexual deviancy, and would disallow freedom of "victims" to retaliate in legal means.

  • ||

    I distinctly remember asking my 7th grade teacher, a nun in a catholic school, why it was ok to see people die horrible deaths on television but not ok to see people make love. She turned beet red and was completely confounded. She had no answer other than to put me in detention. I think I was punished precisely because I asked in a serious way rather than a mocking one.

  • Bobarian||

    Maybe you got detention because of how you were touching yourself when you asked the question?

  • ||

    I deliberately left that out of the story to make myself seem more earnest. How did you know?

  • Calidissident||

    Maybe Bobarian is your 7th grade teacher?

  • ||

    Or classmate....that did cross my mind. I hope he/she doesnt have pics.

  • Bobarian||

    Well, I did used to be nun before the operation...

  • American||

    Suppose your gf was watching that stuff. Would you care? No? Really? You would know that she would be arroused by it, that the men in the whatever the medium are more attractive than you, and well, this is fucking evolution for crying out loud. That's why.

  • ||

    I bet you are a hoot at parties.
    I grew up with fuckers like you. Again, get over yourself.

  • Rasilio||

    wait she's aroused by it? I fail to see where this is a problem for me, it means that not only am I likely to be getting laid, it means she's going to be really agressively into it.

  • ||

    Actually very few women are aroused by porn. for that matter me either. American is clueless about that. He also asserts above that women marry to satisfy their libidos...which he misspelled. Also false. He also clearly admits that his woman becoming aroused around other men makes his insecurities explode.

    I think American is the incarnation of the right-wing neandertals that the left parodies everyone of right/libertarian bent to be.

  • Rasilio||

    No, most women are aroused by some form of porn, just not the same type that men are aroused by, and even with the "traditional" male centric porn the percentage of women who get aroused by it is significant if not an outright majority.

  • iggy||

    Yeah, if women weren't aroused by porn then the sales of 50 Shades of Grey no longer make any sense.

  • Ashlyn||

    You're damn right women like porn. The entire romance novel industry is women's direct counterpart to men's "BustyAsianBeauties.com" style porn.

    This includes plenty of banging, but it's banging with emotional context.

  • Pagan Priestess||

    What Ashlyn said.

  • ||

    I am sure the thread is long dead, but for the record I will clarify.

    By porn I meant the male-centric, super-fake, very explicit stuff with the super cheesy music.

    The stuff y'all are referring to I consider to be romance with explicit sex, not porn. By adding emotional content the porn tag disappears.

  • American||

    "He also clearly admits that his woman becoming aroused around other men makes his insecurities explode."
    That's not what I said. My gf is a lot like me, a "racist" "traditionalist." It's wierd how men being men, defending their monoploy on their women, has become the most evil thing ever to this society. Yes I am what the left paradies, and I am proud of that.

  • iggy||

    'Murdican, there's a difference between having a monopoly on your woman and making a sandwich for the chick you have tied up in your basement.

  • Pagan Priestess||

    Wrong. Women like porn as much as men, it just takes a different form. Romance novels are not read for their literary content. I personally don't like romance novels myself, but some yaoi will get me super steamy in no time flat. Even women who claim to not like porn generally just haven't run into the right kind yet.

  • C. Anacreon||

    "yaoi"

    I had never heard of that and had to look that one up. Wow, quite interesting and sounds pretty widespread for something I hadn't come across before. I've always liked manga, what a cool version this is -- and certainly a logical opposite to men enjoying Sailor Moon getting it on with Sailor Mercury.

  • Pagan Priestess||

    Correct. Many men like to watch two hot chicks doing each other, right? Same diff. I like to see two beautiful men doing each other.

  • Disgusted Dem||

    Psychologists have tested women's response to hardcore erotica. The vast majority were aroused by it even though some were not aware of it at the conscious level.

    I suspect the conscious suppression of their arousal state comes from the constant social warnings to teenage girls of the negative consequences of sexual activity.

  • ||

    yaoi

    I admit I had to look that up. yikes. But hey PaganPriestess, if it gets you going I will happily supply you with all you want.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    [Insert joke about shoes and Jane Austen novels here]

  • American||

    Suppose Gary Johnson won the 2012 election. Immediatly he put an open borders libertarian program into place. Taxes went down, imperialism stopped, and all of the world was welcomed enter to our country. Just how many people would immigrate? Look at puerto rico, which has free immigration. 25% of the nation immigrated until we bribed them with welfare to stay home. Doubtless many people from the third world would want to immigrate. What effect would these immigrants have on our country? Unemployment would increase dramatically. Economic growth resulting from libertarian policies would create some jobs, but not enough for the massive onslought of immigrants. How many times can a lawn be mowed? With welfare cut and unemployment high, millions would crowd into homeless shelters. They would get food and shelter, but little else. Many native-born minority Americans would also be hit hard as wages decline to third world levels Meanwhile, I would still have a house, a car, a good job, and intelligent children, and a big tax cut. Do you think that the poor unemployed immigrants, many of whom would not have very high opinions of white Americans like me, would put up with this. Crime would undoubtetly increase. The homeless shelters would be fertile grounds for socialist politics. The Islamic immigrants, unable to be a part of the American dream, would hold on to the views of the old country. A nation of thrid worlders would look like the third world. How hard is that to understand?

  • ||

    Oh, can that shit. We know all about your xenophobic immigration views. You are supposed to be on an anti-porn/sex toy prudish rant now.

    Tell us again how your wife got wet watching porn and left you so she could get some decent cock.

  • Bobarian||

    From a Puerto Rican Immigrant.

    And now we know the Paul Harvey!

  • iggy||

    This is the funniest conversation I've ever seen. American shows himself to be a bizarre prude who is terrified of porn and sex toys. He gets called on his 1870s era sexual beliefs and keeps coming back for more abuse. Then, when all has calmed down, he flies back in with a totally off topic anti-immigrant rant.

    Here's my response to your argument about low income Americans having their wages decrease from third world labor: Tough shit. You grew up in America, with American privileges and American education. Our schools may suck, but if you used even a modicum of effort and graduated from high school, you should be far more intelligent, have more human capital and be more productive than a Hispanic immigrant.

    If you didn't take advantage of the benefits of living in America enough to be able to out compete a third-world migrant farm worker, then that shit is on you.

    Furthermore, your arguments are identical to anti-Irish, anti-Catholic and anti-Chinese arguments from the turn of the century. But last I checked, those Irish, Catholic and Chinese individuals didn't turn America into a third world mire of papist, Confucian, potato eaters. Why are Mexicans and Islamic people somehow different?

  • American||

    Funny how 1870s era economic beliefs are good but 1870s era sexual beliefs are bad. Why are sexual beliefs from that era bad? You can't use 'cause their from the 1870s. When you talk to low-income Americans, remember that they have just as much of a vote as you do. Mexicans and Islamic people are different becuase they fundamentantally hate this country, and are encouraged to do so by liberalism. And there is no opportunity for social advancement in a libertarian society, apart from the small minority of intelligent people. And because we have liberalism, which will encourage them to become socialists instead of trying to become Americans. And because of the sheer magnitude that would occur under open borders. Anyway, the burden of proof should not lie on me to prove that a wife-beating, Jew-hating, Christain-hating, opium raising, American-hating, taliban supporting Afgan immigrant will not give up everything he believes in. It should lie on you to prove that it will.

  • iggy||

    I don't think 1870s era economic policies are good. They were heavily protectionist, particularly in regards to tariffs. Corruption, cronyism and payoffs were rampant. Today we have overall freer trade than we did then, which is definitely good, although it's probably offset by all the regs. Try again, Murican.

    Mexicans and Muslims hate this country? Really? When I go into an inner city neighborhood, do you know who owns all the stores? I'm from Chicago, so it's mostly Puerto Ricans and middle eastern immigrants. Black people in inner city Chicago often hate Puerto Ricans and Muslims, not because they're competing for jobs, but because they don't like that they have to work for the Puerto Ricans and Muslims.

    Question: Do you think it would be better if all those Muslim, Indian and Puerto Rican immigrants had stayed home and there were no jobs in the inner cities instead?

    You also seem to ignore that immigrants also DEMAND things. It's not a zero sum game of just jobs and wages. There's also the things immigrants buy. Since they buy shit, there is an increase in economic activity which means there need to be more jobs to supply the immigrants. As a result, it's not even necessarily true that immigrants take jobs and lower wages, because someone needs to supply the immigrants too.

  • American||

    Oh, and in the 1870s we didn't have income taxes, socialized medicine, imperialism, or regulation. Many of the tarrifs were neccesary for government revenue. And you didn't explain why 1870s sexual morality was bad. You're point about DEMAND, id funny because its so fuking Keynsian. Let's give people welfare and they'll deamnd things and that'll lead to economic growth!

  • iggy||

    How the fuck is it Keynesian? Jesus, you don't know any of the things you're talking about. Keynes talked about AGGREGATE demand and his belief that government spending could shift a demand curve so as to bring back full employment. He's wrong because there IS NO aggregate demand, just supply and demand related to individual businesses producing or not producing.

    When someone moves here and buys shit, producers supply more of it. There is not some set level of supply that just sits there regardless of how much people are willing to buy. If demand falls, producers produce less. If there aren't enough people to produce it, producers will hire more people to do just that.

    This isn't Keynesian, it's basic supply and demand dynamics. It's also different when someone comes here, gets a job PRODUCING and also demands something. Your example of welfare is stupid as hell. The problem with welfare is that someone sits there and doesn't produce anything. If someone is working and providing economic benefits to the economy, then yes, their demand of goods results in more goods being produced.

    Not believing in Keynesian economic manipulation doesn't mean I don't believe that demand exists.

  • iggy||

    You're also wrong about the 1870s. Tariffs were not 'necessary for government revenue.' It was an attempt to protect Northeastern business interests and Southern states despised it because it harmed their ability to buy factory goods for farming. It also resulted in retaliatory tariffs from other countries not buying American ag products, which further hurt the south. So yeah, it had a major effect on free trade.

    No imperialism? We were 20 years away from war with Spain over Cuba and the Philippines. Also, what do you call war with Mexico and the subsequent conquest of Texas and California? Just because it happened on this continent it's not imperialism? What do you call our involvement with Hawaii?

    Jesus, it's like you know words exist, but don't know what they mean.

  • American||

    "Tariffs were not 'necessary for government revenue"
    Yes, they were. They were protective as well, but they were the only source of revenue the government had other than land sales. I suppose to you it would be wrong to say that the holocost wasn't happening in 1922, because it was only 20 years away. The Mexican war was over in 1848. At that time our involment was purely volentary, consiting of peacefull trade and settlement by individauls and corporations. In 1893, American settlers overthrew the government, and asked to be annexed by America. It didn't happen until 1899, however, because of resistence by anti-imperialists.

  • American||

    Demand exists, but what you're implying is that introducing demand into an economy will improve it. In reality, it will simply increase prices. The producers will produce more, but wealth will be consumed by paying the higher prices for the goods. Suppose you have a nation, which produces wheat. Will increasing the population lead people to get, on average, A) less wheat or B) more wheat? Of course, you could always produce more wheat.(assuming there are no such things as ecological constraints, which there are) That will require more wealth to be invested. Do the immigrants produce any wealth? As I said, a lawn can only be mowed so many times.

  • Calidissident||

    If they don't produce wealth, they don't have a job. So they don't have the resources to consume. And people don't immigrate to places with no job prospects

  • Calidissident||

    Do you wanna apply this logic to, say, racial beliefs of the 1870's? There were still a lot of people who thought slavery was ok, and most thought blacks were inferior people who should be segregated from whites and/or not given equal protection under the law

  • American||

    I wasn't saying beliefs from the 1870s are good or bad. I was disputing iggy's left-wing logic that "old" things are bad because they are "old."

  • iggy||

    I love that I'm a leftist because I don't think shaming gay people is okay, I believe that when Mexicans come here and work supply and demand shift and 1870s gender politics are not okay.

    Why don't we look at another leftists views on immigration:

    "If you have free immigration, in the way we had it before 1914, everybody benefited. The people who were here benefited. The people who came benefited. Because nobody would come unless he, or his family, thought he would do better here than he would elsewhere. And, the new immigrants provided additional resources, provided additional possibilities for the people already here. So everybody can mutually benefit." - Milton Friedman

    'New immigrants provided additional resources.' Gee, that sounds almost exactly like my argument above when you bizarrely called me a Keynesian.

  • American||

    You ARE a leftist, or at least you think like one. Saying that shaming gay people is morally equivalent to imprisoning them is a leftist things to say. Sayin that something is bad because it is "1870s" is a leftist thing to say. As for the Milton Friedman quote, he was talking about immigrants who came before 1914. When there was a shortage of unskilled labor. Unskilled labor today is not an additional resource. Before 1914 immigrants had last names like "Friedman." The average Jewish IQ is 115. For hispanics, 89. Source: Charles Murray: The Bell Curve.

  • Calidissident||

    Shortage? So why not let the laws of supply and demand find the equilibrium?

    You are aware, BTW, that in the early 1900's, they started IQ testing immigrants, and that a disproportionate number of Jews failed the tests? Your arguments have been recycled for hundreds of years, only the names change. And those Jews vote Democrat just as much as Hispanics do, which is usually your #1 argument for keeping them out. I don't think people with IQs of 115 are entitled to more rights than people with an IQ of 89

  • American||

    "disproportionate number of Jews failed the tests?"
    That is not true. That comes from the discreditied book The Mismeasure of Man.(1982) This is liberal crap. If Jews are not more intelligent, how do they end up controlling so much of the county's wealth? How are they 25% of the ivy league? Must be that "Jewsih conspiracy."

  • Calidissident||

    I'm not saying the Bell Curve is pure bunk, but it's also not the unreproachable Gospel that you've made it out to be, nor are the conclusions you reach the same as what the authors themselves have said. Sowell's "Ethnicity and IQ" is a pretty good, unbiased, and short account of some problems with conclusions reached by both the authors and others.

    In any case, you (as I expected) ignored the political points of my argument (the first paragraph and the last two sentences of the second) to argue about IQ specifically. As I said, it really doesn't matter. People with IQs of 115 aren't entitled to more rights than people with IQs of 89

  • Calidissident||

    Where exactly did iggy say old things are bad because they are old? Characterizing your beliefs as "1870s" doesn't mean he thinks their mere age is the reason they are bad, just that they are from that time

  • American||

    When Tony call's your economic beliefs "the 1870s" and leaves it at that, do you assume he's saying they are bad because they are "old?"

  • Calidissident||

    First off Tony is a moron. Iggy isn't. Second, Tony also uses the "We need to return to the good ole days of the 1950's and 60's" argument so I don't think he thinks old things are inherently bad

  • American||

    "First off Tony is a moron. Iggy isn't."
    That's a world-class arguement, isn't it? Tony employes what is called doublethink, the past is bad and good at the same time. Iggy uses it too. He says I'm a "bizare prude" because I have "1870s sexual morality." It sounded like an unsult.

  • Calidissident||

    One can disapprove of 1870s sexual morality without disapproving of it BECAUSE it is from the 1870s

  • Calidissident||

    Just because someone from another country can immigrate doesn't mean they will. We've had net emigration to Mexico the last four years due to the economy. People have a lot of trouble leaving the place where they were born and grew up in. They're not going to leave to crowd into a homeless shelter. Has the entire country of Mexico immigrated to the US, despite the fact that it's not all that hard to cross the border, even if it's technically illegal?

  • American||

    "We've had net emigration to Mexico the last four years due to the economy"
    B.S. Show a source. And living in an American homeless shelter is exponentially better than living in a nigerian slum.

  • iggy||

    Now it's Nigeria? How many Nigerian immigrants do we have every year, American? Who cares about Nigerian slums when hardly any Nigerians move here?

    Also, I don't think Cali's right about net migration to Mexico, but migration from Mexico has stopped.

    http://www.pewhispanic.org/201.....haps-less/

    It's mostly due to the economy though, and assuming a rebound Mexican immigration could very well restart.

  • American||

    "Now it's Nigeria? How many Nigerian immigrants do we have every year, American?"
    We would have a lot if we had open borders. How much would it cost to outfit an old cargo ship to take human cargo from nigeria to America? Even if few Nigerians could afford this, say 10 percent could and half go, that is over 5 million people.

  • Calidissident||

    Did it hurt when you pulled those numbers out of your ass?

  • Calidissident||

    Iggy, your source verifies what I said, except that I meant to say "few" and not "four." Looking at the graph, it appears to be about the last couple years to be more precise. Mexicans aren't mindless hordes with a one track mind of moving to America at all costs

  • Calidissident||

    And WTF does this have to do with the current topic? Felt the need to distract from your anti-porn tirade?

  • iggy||

    What's this have to do with the current topic? Simple: Everything in 'Murican's life leads back to immigration.

    Do you really want to be responsible for when 'Murican's children are raped by socialist, porn crazed Messicans who simply do not hold the same values as their white superiors?

    What's it like to hate America, Cali?

  • American||

    Who did most Mexicans vote for last election? Which ethnic groups are disporportionatly represented as rapists? Do Mexicans and Muslims hold our same values? Answer the questions.

  • Calidissident||

    "Who did most Mexicans vote for last election?"

    About 98-99% voted for Obama and Romney. Same as whites

    "Which ethnic groups are disporportionatly represented as rapists?"

    Blacks commit the most rape, and very few of them are immigrants. Hispanics commit more than whites on average, but they are also younger and disproportionately male, which skews the numbers. In any case, most rapes are intraracial. White women are much more likely to be raped by a white guy than a black guy or a Hispanic guy. And hell, men commit 99% of rape (or something like that). Do women have a right to lock up or deport men?

    "Do Mexicans and Muslims hold our same values?"

    Regardless of what "values" you're talking about, or who is included in "our", I have no interest in controlling the values of other people

  • American||

    "Blacks commit the most rape"
    That makes you a racist. I bet you long for the days of slavery, when white women were free from the specture of blacks. Dirty racist.

  • Calidissident||

    Go screw yourself and your logical fallacies

  • American||

    "About 98-99% voted for Obama and Romney. Same as whites"
    The vast majority of Gary Johnson supporters are white. And you really think that there is no difference between the parties? I'm not a team red troll, but I think they are certanly better in most every way than the democrats. Most democrats have a positive view of socialism. Most republicans have a positive view of capitalism. Look at the California. Now look at Kansas. See any difference? Hispanics are in almost every way more socialist than whites. And yes, I'd take 50% capitalism and 50% socialism any day over 100% socialism. I'd rather live in America than Mexico.

  • Calidissident||

    "The vast majority of Gary Johnson supporters are white."

    Is it significantly different from general racial demographics? Exit polls show, rounded, 98% of whites and 98% of Hispanics voted for Obama or Romney. Maybe more Hispanics voted for Jill Stein, but that's on you to prove. In any case why are we quibbling over differences of less than one percent? We're talking about a little more than one percent of white people who voted for GJ. And he got historically high numbers.

    "And you really think that there is no difference between the parties?"

    Not none, just not very significant differences. And there are issues where Democrats are generally better, even if they still suck; they're generally less supportive of drug laws, laws like the Patriot Act, were less supportive of the Iraq War, less likely to support a war with Iran, support less military spending than Republicans, and don't support SoCon bullshit. This isn't to say they're generally good on these issues, or that there aren't issues where they're generally worse than Republicans. My point is that, in the big picture, the differences are trivial, and certainly not worth basing immigration policy on which TEAM the person is more likely to vote for.

  • American||

    So first anyone but the libertarian is unacceptable, then the libertarian is trivial. Are Democrats less suportive of drug laws. I don't think so. When the issue came before the supreme court, guess who took the anti-prohibition position? Scalia and Thomas. Yes, they were less supportive of the Iraq war. However that hasn't held when they got into power. As for "soconbullshit" issues like gay marraige, they aren't important enogh to matter in the course of history.

  • Calidissident||

    "So first anyone but the libertarian is unacceptable, then the libertarian is trivial."

    Not exactly what I was saying, but in any case, how is this contradictory?

    Where are marijuana laws most lax? Not in Deep Red states (with the exception of Alaska). Washington is a blue state, and Colorado is leaning blue. Most of the cosponsers of the bill to respect the legalization of those states are Democrats. Scalia did not take the anti-prohibition position.

    "As for "soconbullshit" issues like gay marraige, they aren't important enogh to matter in the course of history."

    Good thing we have American here to be the Supreme Arbiter of what is and isn't important

  • American||

    Good thing we have Calidissident here to tell us homosexuals not getting their fair share of government subsidies payed for my me is just as important an issue as the dismantling of our constitution.

  • Calidissident||

    I'm not the one who made a claim about what is and isn't important. You did. And let's not kid ourselves; Republicans are just as complicit with Democrats when it comes to dismantling the Constitution, so that isn't a point in there favor. Aside from the few libertarian(ish) Republicans like the Pauls and Amash, what Republicans challenge the constitutionality of major social programs, government regulatory agencies, all the departments, the Fed, etc? Not to mention drug laws, the Patriot Act, NDAA, modern presidential war powers, etc

  • Calidissident||

    And once again, you ignore the substance of the post to attack one minor part of it. I know a few other people around here who have a habit of doing that ...

  • Calidissident||

    "Most democrats have a positive view of socialism. Most republicans have a positive view of capitalism."

    Only in a very shallow, superficial sense. When you get down to specifics, most Republicans are perfectly ok with the majority of what the federal government does (especially the politicians)

    "Look at the California. Now look at Kansas. See any difference?"

    Kansas isn't exactly some sort of paradise. As much as I hate the CA government, I would much rather live here than Kansas. Nor is everything the fault of Hispanics. Oh and how about we pick another state, like Vermont? The whitest state in the Union, where Obama had his biggest MOV. Or a pretty white state like Massachusetts?

    And Mexico isn't 100% socialist

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Americsn's pearl-clutching panic that women and porn is icky combined with the fact that he would prevent funny, hot, and smart Latinas like Anjelah Johnson from living in this country is proof positive that American is gayer than Bruce Vilanch.

  • Calidissident||

    Well you see HM, if we let in women from other countries, then we have to let in the men too. And that means dirty Mexicans and blacks stealing our white women! And we can't have that, can we?

  • Calidissident||

    *To clarify, I am aware of your racial background

  • ||

    Hot yes?

    Funny/smart? Maybe to your dick.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The dick doesn't lie, bro.

  • wei||

    Free tool?How effective

  • Brandybuck||

    Wow, I guess there really is a silver bullet after all...

  • SAL||

    The very existence of this "American" guy dissuades me from migrating to the U.S. Nice job, American!

  • Disgusted Dem||

    I disagree with Phil Harvey about violence in entertainment as a means to satisfy human nature. It's the approach of danger that creates dramatic tension in fiction and violence is the easiest form of danger to add to fiction. In the classic Sergei Eisenstein scene with the baby carriage careening down the steps, I doubt the majority of people want to see the baby hurt. It's fear for the baby's safety that adds tension.

    Many modern filmmakers do seem to think it's only the violence that matters rather than the sense of approaching danger. And the scenes they create may be violently frenetic but they lack any sense of dramatic tension.

  • EdwinNJ||

    I call bullshit on the "It would have been unthinkable... to sell... TO WOMEN" on the TO WOMEN part. This is more of the typical trying to paint conservative-type values as being solely anti-woman. No, honey, the real fuddy-duddy types don't want EITHER sex to be using sex toys. There is (was?) that law in Alabama that outlaws sex toys, and it's written in general barring anything that "stimulates the genitals", not woman-specific, i.e. it also bans men's toys.

    Not that such ultra-conservative values are good, especially when enforced by law, but neither are the liberal-whores-heathens in our society, and the latter can only make the former look bad by strawmanning, just as they do with economic issues. At least the ultra-conservatives, and more easy-going conservatives (like the ones here on Reason) are honest, and also with valuyes that are better than the liberal/whores.

  • EdwinNJ||

    I'm not as hard-line as American, but he has a better point than his detractors. Things have gotten kind of f!@*ed up in the blue states in America. People have sex, but far fewer marriages or real relationships. People know how to have fun, but they don't know how to be happy in the long arc of life. Our physical desires should ultimately cultivated to bring us happiness in life, not to simply be indulged in now and then. I mean, part of being happy is every once in a while doing that, indulging momentarily and having fun, but in a directed way.
    I mean god damned, nowadays I got people correcting me when I say "So that's your girlfriend?" and they're like "No, we're dating". What next, it's gonna be like "What? You mean we have to look at each other when we fuck?" "What? Emotions? Care about the other person? What? I thought we were just stimulating each other's soft parts until we finished."

    Women sleep with guys who are great at bullshit small talk, shun everyone else, then wonder at 40 why they're not married yet. As the younger generation grows older we're going to have like 5 fold more cat ladies than older generations did.

  • EdwinNJ||

    And don't tell me about delaying love and marriage. Maybe it's necessary to a point, but there's a limit. Who the hell wants to raise a 10-year old when you're 50?

    Part of the problem is that our marriage laws leave people nothing to look forward to, and our ridiculous levels of education and savings that we require induce delaying anything serious. And So young people deliberately just have flings and nothing serious, but i think the problem is that sticks, and maybe they don't know how to have a relationship once they get older and ostensibly have time to after college/grad school.

  • Erotines Prekes||

    The article is short, but the title of it is eye-catching. This video is worth watching.

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE