Libertarianism Includes Freedom to Make Immoral Choices, but Doesn't Remove Consequence

(AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

On Tuesday, I wrote about how America is currently at a moral crossroads and I based it on two characters that have emerged into the public consciousness very recently. 

On one hand, you have singer/songwriter Oliver Anthony, an imperfect but ultimately moral man who lives by the guidance of God and strives to be of service to his fellow man. He's not a choir boy, and you probably won't hear his latest hit in a church, but he's become something of an unspoken leader to many thanks to his strength of character and victorious struggle against inner demons. 

On the other hand, you have Susanna Gibson, a Virginia State House candidate running as a Democrat who recently had a side gig as a work-from-home porn star with her husband. Gibson dubs herself a "hotwife" which in the sex world means a married woman whose husband is a willing cuckold. She and her husband commit sex acts for money on a website called "Chatterbate" where she allows viewers to make requests for sex acts between her and her husband.  

I posed the question to America; Which of these people should we be putting up in a position of leadership? I don't even necessarily mean to elected office, I mean someone we hold up as a light to follow among the people. 

(READ: America Has Come to a Moral Fork In the Road)

I got some very interesting responses. While most of the responses were positive, there were a few people who questioned my libertarian credentials because I found a woman doing pornography a bad basis on which to begin a political career. 

I've run into these arguments before. It's the idea that sex work of any kind shouldn't be looked at as a bad thing, and should be viewed as a completely normal and common occurrence in a free country. My nuanced opinion on this subject will probably please few, but when it comes to a free country, nuanced opinions are required. 

Do I think Gibson should have the freedom to run as a politician despite her background as a very recent work in porn? Sure. Provided she didn't do anything illegal during her time doing porn (there's some question about that currently) there's no reason Gibson shouldn't be qualified to run for office. If people want to vote her in based on her positions then fine. There are quite a few people that would be based on her beliefs alone, which, according to what I've seen of her so far, is cookie-cutter modern Democrat. 

At the end of the day, porn stars are people and they have every right to get into the business of politics if they so choose. I discussed this before when porn star Brandi Love showed up at a TPUSA event and was ejected because of her career. My opinion on the matter at the time was (and still is) that it was right to eject her from the event on the basis that this was an event meant for teens and young adults and a porn star had no business being there, but that in any other case, she would have every right to be present at a conservative event as she, herself, is conservative. 

(READ: About Porn Stars and Conservatism)

Now, do I think Gibson should be voted for because of her very recent porn-making?

I don't and for several reasons. 

For starters, despite the commonality of pornography, it's not a positive or normal aspect of society. Prostitution might be the world's oldest profession but it's rife with destruction and death. That's not me being hyperbolic, either. The porn world is filled with depression, suicide, and regret that's very rarely ever talked about. 

Porn stars, even the famous ones, face hardships that aren't addressed often enough in our society. Suicide is rampant in the industry thanks to the dehumanization that these stars, both men and women, go through. The pay is often miserable for what they're giving up, and they're giving up a lot. Genuine relationships become difficult and many are cut off from friends and family as a choice. The people who you leave in charge of handling your business do not care about you and will often pressure you into sinking deeper into depravity. Refusals result in a backlash that could see you ostracized and bullied. 

I encourage you to take the time to watch an interview Michael Knowles did with former porn star Joshua Broome, a man who was a porn star for six years before quitting the industry and becoming a pastor. Broome goes into detail about the personal tragedies that come with being a porn star, and how awful the industry truly is behind the curtain. His own personal journey is an incredible one that included a brush with suicide himself. 

This is not something we need to normalize as a society. Pornography is immoral and that level of immorality comes with serious issues. Gibson, at the time of this writing, has expressed no regret for allowing strangers to enter her bedroom through a webcam, nor any qualms about the idea that her children will likely be shown pictures and videos of her by his classmates growing up as a way of teasing and bullying them. 

Morally speaking, this is not something we as a people should just be okay with. Should people be allowed to do it of their own free will? Sure. But making it so common that we're willing to allow it to spread into the public so openly to the point where we're willing to elect that mentality into office isn't wise. 

The libertarian in me says "Yes, she should run for office if she wants to," but wisdom says that voting for Gibson is just a bad idea. Not only do I think her politics are bad, I don't know if I can trust anyone stupid enough to subject their own children to a level of shame none should ever have to endure. Her priorities are all off, and if she's willing to do that to her own family then what is she willing to do to you? 

Some people need to face facts. Porn is not healthy. It's not healthy on a chemical level, on a relationship level, or on a moral level. It's not healthy for the people who make it, and it's atrocious that this particular issue isn't talked about more. 

So why would I want to elect that to office? 

I believe in libertarianism and that people should be free to make immoral decisions if they so choose, but libertarianism doesn't mean I have to act on every freedom I have. You're free to be a drunk, but it doesn't mean you're free from the consequences of being a drunk. 


Trending on RedState Videos