The moral argument for not making laws about many—especially victimless—activities is that people have a right to live their own lives so long as they don't hurt anybody else. That's a convincing case for those of us who naturally gravitate to a live-and-let-live take on life. But it's unpersuasive to the growing ranks of those inclined to control freakery in these illiberal times, and who believe the state should step in to control bad things. The strongest rebuttal to the authoritarian case is that people so vigorously disagree as to what constitutes "bad" that efforts to regulate a whole host of activities invite noncompliance. Recent polling provides evidence that Americans disagree on many issues.
