To the contrary, a validated and affective treatment for sexual offenders is increased exposure to pornographic materials because this de-sensitizes their repressed urges. One could logically argue that making exotic dancers more available to sexual offenders would actually reduce the offenses and improve public safety.

Would someone respond to this? Because I’m pretty sure it’s wrong.

First, I don’t think that we need to give politicians the power to “financially punish legal activities that they find morally objectionable” in order to allow, say, taxes on carbon emissions or water pollution, because I don’t think it should be legal to pollute other people’s air and water without compensating them for the harm you’ve caused them. Damaging the environment isn’t bad because it’s “morally objectionable” per se, it’s bad because it hurts people and their property, and a carbon tax system or cap and trade are ways of limiting that harm and compensating the victims (who could comprise all of us) for whatever harm is done to them. And I’m certainly not the only libertarian who supports such a system, although there’s definitely disagreement among libertarians about how to implement and enforce such regulation.

As for the libertarian anti-tax ideology, I’m not going to say that I don’t support drastically lower taxes; I do. However, I don’t think that cutting taxes is the first step in shrinking the government. Instead, I think that we need to cut unnecessary and wasteful programs (corporate welfare and the war on drug users, to name a few) first in order to lower the cost of government, then lower everyone’s taxes (and yes, I support progressive taxation, so long as everyone’s tax rates are as low as possible) once their money isn’t needed anymore. I think that especially now, during this administration that is living proof that “starve the beast” is not an effective means of getting the government to cut spending, a lot of libertarians are coming around to the view that lowering taxes alone can’t solve the country’s problems.

It would depend partly on whether stage shows or private shows are the big draw. My knowledge of the industry is informed by Oregon, where stage tips make up a fairly major portion of dancers’ income.

SCOTUS has ruled against you precisely on this issue. Sorry.

So a ’sin tax’ might be a good thing for the girls anyhow.

And if leftists object to it, maybe they should rethink the over-the-top pro-government, pro-tax ideology they’ve been pushing for decades.

Tax cuts are only half of the over-the-top anti-government, anti-tax ideology we’ve been pushing for decades. The public has simultaneously bought into the popular parts of your agenda (pro-spending) and ours (anti-tax), with predictable results. We’re equal partners in bringing this about.

Taxes or other restrictions which are based upon content (i.e. exotic dancing but not dancing at the prom), have been repeatedly upheld by the courts as prohibited.

Further, there is no proven link between exotic dancing and the conduct (sexual assault), which this proposal seeks to fund. To the contrary, a validated and affective treatment for sexual offenders is increased exposure to pornographic materials because this de-sensitizes their repressed urges. One could logically argue that making exotic dancers more available to sexual offenders would actually reduce the offenses and improve public safety.

As for safe neighborhoods? For anyone who took a moment to base their decision upon facts–read the “secondary effects” studies (that have been researched and published by academics, and cited by courts), they would find that having an adult nightclub in their neighborhood actually improves public safety. You are safer having an adult entertainment nightclub in your neighborhood than you are having a 7-Eleven mart. Why? Because of good lighting, security staff, lots of people around, and business owners who watch their Ps and Qs and who want to be good neighbors to the surrounding businesses.

Lastly, the public officials who are promoting this unconstitutional proposal could be viewed as domestic enemies to the constitution because they are seeking to undermine its protections. At the very least, they are in violation of their oath of office (which should be perjury), because they promised to uphold and protect the constitution — and clearly by this attack, they are not.

$5 for admission
$8 for a drink
$32 for spending on the dancers

The fee won’t come out of the dancers’ pockets because customers won’t be visiting, it will come out of the dancers’ pockets because, on paying a large admission fee, there’s a sense that “I’ve already paid for my entertainment.” That sense of entitlement doesn’t destroy business entirely, but it makes it tougher on the businesswomen. Some small percentage of people will come, and stare, and not tip. The men who stay home don’t cost a dancer business. The men who come and stare and don’t tip, do.

Mind you, I’m inclined to support a tax on strip clubs just the same. I simply wouldn’t put it somewhere where it would affect consumer psychology in that fashion.

My suggestion: Tax the clubs on total revenue, not head count. They’ll respond by raising drink prices — when a customer is paying for a drink, they don’t always conflate the drink with the entertainment the way they conflate admission fees — and s0me of them would probably raise their admission fee, but if the choice is left up to the club, then that allows a certain amount of market variance and business savvy to enter the picture. If some clubs make the wrong decisions for their clientele and others make the right ones, then those clubs may go downhill, but that would not leave all dancers with a less pleasant work environment.

Not that dancing in Texas is a very pleasant work environment from what I hear, in the first place, and my familiarity with the industry may not apply there. So, caveat.