Action at a distance

Here is an example of a human activity that I find totally, incomprehensibly revolting and without the slightest imaginable redeeming value—and yet which I cannot say I have the political or moral authority forcibly to stop. The best I can do is pour my contempt on it and hope others share that view.

...which brings to mind an interesting irony. Conservatives accuse libertarians of reading things into the constitution that are not there, simply on the basis of their policy preferences. Even assuming this baseless accusation were grounded in fact, do they not do the same thing? Do they not imagine that, coincidentally enough, the legislature happens to have the legitimate authority to intervene whenever a conservative’s moral sensibilities are outraged? If it’s deplorable for folks to read their policy preferences into the Constitution, is it not equally deplorable to read into one’s policy preferences into the legislative authority? Conservatives talk about restraint, but where is their restraint? Restraint means being outraged by a practice—but knowing that you must persuade, rather than criminalize.

Update: Yes, yes, I know the police power covers morals and whatnot. I just think it’s amusing that conservatives pour into “morals” whatever they happen to think is an important moral issue, so that there’s never a moral issue they think is beyond the constitutional powers of government. “Legislative authority” just happens to be enough to permit them to pass whatever law they think is necessary to forcibly improve mankind. And while they go out and tell us all that we have no constitutional rights to a, b, or c, but instead must try to persuade our fellow man not to violate these rights—yet they seem to never tell themselves that something is morally outrageous, but that they must persuade others not to engage in the activity; instead, they miraculously find enough legislative authority to pass a law banning it. New World Man says “You must persuade not to criminalize.” In other words, the presumption is in favor of criminalizing, and exceptions must be justified out of that. Criminalization is the norm; liberty the exception; all is banned that is not permitted. Which is to say, no man is born free.