Michael Bloomberg

The Tyranny of the Virtuous

Puritans haven't vanished, they've merely changed the subject.

|

The first law of thermodynamics says that energy can't be created and can't be destroyed—it can only be changed from one form into another. The same holds true of the puritanical impulse.

Puritanism in the historical sense is as dead as the Salem witches. The religious group that settled in New England outlawed theater, rejected any form of sex except marital intercourse, banned celebration of Christmas and spent hours in church listening to horrifying depictions of Hell.

But the term has come to be a synonym for any disapproval or discouragement of carnal pleasure. Sexual puritanism has receded even among devout Christians, who generally see nothing wrong with husbands and wives gratifying each other however they please.

Hobo Matt / photo on flickr

In society as a whole, things have changed even more drastically. Virginity is no longer held up as an ideal for young people; TV has an abundance of flesh and raunch; and the majority of Americans no longer see homosexual acts as "always wrong."

Most people don't think it's their place to tell others what sort of sexual behavior is acceptable. With few exceptions, it has become a private matter of individual preference. Laws against sodomy are extinct. Divorce is easy to get. Your sex life is off-limits to government regulation. Busybodies have little impact on policy.

But puritans haven't vanished. They've merely changed the subject. The expansion of freedom in matters of sex has coincided with a shrinkage in matters of health. New Yorkers would laugh at laws policing sex, but they elected a mayor who has no problem trying to control other physical indulgences.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg brought forth a ban on large sugar-laden beverages, which this week was struck down by a state court. But the idea won't go away that easily: The city will appeal the ruling, and other cities are considering similar laws.

Nor is this approach out of character for Bloomberg, whose attitude is: "Let my conscience be your guide." He prohibited restaurants from using transfats, banned smoking in bars and restaurants as well as most outdoor spaces, compelled fast-food chains to post calorie counts on their menus, proposed limits on sodium and even stopped hospitals from giving bottles of infant formula to new mothers. When it comes to what you put in your body, nothing is off-limits to the city.

The sugary drink measure has been controversial, but if experience is any guide, it will someday be as common and accepted as smoke-free taverns. Individuals could be allowed to make their own choices without coercing others, but that doesn't satisfy the public health zealots.

Many of them yearn to limit nicotine in cigarettes, at least until they can ban them entirely. Many would like to curb fast-food outlets as well: Los Angeles has blocked new ones from opening in some neighborhoods. Several local governments, including Boston and Philadelphia, have pronounced transfats verboten.

The usual rationale is safeguarding health, which Bloomberg said would save taxpayer dollars that go to treat residents afflicted with lifestyle-related diseases. His lawyers argued that sugary drinks promote obesity, which is to blame for many of the 500,000 or more New Yorkers who have diabetes, each of whom average an extra $6,649 a year in medical costs.

But the underlying motive is to enforce one model of acceptable behavior on everyone. Obesity is commonly regarded as a grave personal failing, an abdication of healthy restraint and abstinence. Some of the virtuous feel entitled to demand virtue of all.

Sound like anyone who landed at Plymouth Rock? Truth is, sexual puritans can make equally plausible arguments on the practical need to regulate the exercise of bedroom behavior, which has major implications for both health and government budgets.

Non-marital sex, after all, produces unwanted births, including among teens who will become public burdens. It increases the incidence of abortion, which some states cover under Medicaid. It spreads diseases that can have fatal consequences, including AIDS and human papillomavirus.

But in the realm of these fleshly pleasures, we have learned to let people make their own decisions, even if they have some impact on others. We've largely liberated ourselves from government interference into deeply personal choices that are a central part of what makes us human.

Well, some of them, anyway. Escaping the puritans is a task that is never finished.

NEXT: Chris Hayes to Replace Ed Schultz as MSNBC 8pm Anchor

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.

  1. Obligatory:

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

    – C.S. Lewis

    1. my neighbor’s mother-in-law makes $89 every hour on the laptop. She has been fired from work for 8 months but last month her pay was $20223 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site jump15.com

  2. Most people don’t think it’s their place to tell others what sort of sexual behavior is acceptable.

    Bullshit, right out of the gate. Go, Chapman.

  3. I’ve pointed out to progressives that the public-health argument for the war on soda is almost verbatim the argument that used to be used to justify sodomy laws. I get that all-purpose scathing rebuttal known as “La la la, I can’t hear you.”

  4. I am startled….Chapman wrote something libertarian!

    Congrats and consider keeping it up!

    1. Next thing you know Tony and Buttplug will actually have coherent arguments.

  5. As humans, we are free to choose what to put in our bodies; as long as it is a penis or abortion instruments. Everything else requires government permission.

  6. I’ll give you a much easier solutions than banning food. STOP PAYING FOR MY HEALTHCARE/INSURANCE! Then you won’t have to fucking worry about how much it fucking costs.

  7. No virtuous man becomes a tyrant.

  8. Laws against sodomy are not extinct. First offense anal sex prostitution is a felony in Louisiana whereas first offense vaginal sex prostitution is a misdemeanor. Louisiana is still discriminating against gay men.

    1. I would be surprised to learn that there had been an actual case brought to court in a long time, if only because it couldn’t possibly stand on appeal. Am I wrong?

  9. LTC(ret) John,

    I was kind of thinking the same thing. Isn’t this the same Chapman that swears to us that the Republicans have us perpetually a hop, skip and a jump away from A Handmaiden’s Tale, while progressives are merely deluded, if well-meaning souls?

  10. I agree that there is legitimate reason to worry about the fact that in a society in which healthcare costs are socialized, in theory people have an interest in the health-related lifestyles of others.

    But I don’t think soda bans and the like are the way to go, and doubt they are effective. There is a social interest and every reason to make public policy to attempt to deal with obesity and morbidity. But it should be done in a scientifically sound, nonintrusive way. Shifting subsidies away from toxic crap and a car culture and toward healthy food availability and a walking culture doesn’t alter anyone’s life with respect to freedom of choice.

    1. What the fuck is a walking culture and why should government make any “culture” a preference?

      1. All of these “solutions” to obesity are far too scattered and indirect to ever work. If obesity is the problem, why not focus on the obese? We’ll put scales in every Post Office, and once a year everyone will have to get weighed. Spot everyone five pounds for clothes and shoes, and then tax them based on their BMI.

        It’s all very simple. I’m sure Jonathan Swift would agree.

      2. “Walking culture,” here in California, means adopting zoning and development policies that basically force all new ‘homes’ to be built as tenements close to urban hubs where, theoretically, people will walk to work rather than driving in from the ‘burbs.

        Liberals despise suburbs like you would not believe.

        1. In San Francisco and elsewhere they actually prevent new apartment complexes from having as much parking as the developers and future tenants want.

        2. Except the ones THEY live in.

  11. Sadbeard says we needs MOAR INFLATION!

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon…..rward.html

    1. We should aim for a long-term inflation rate of four or even five percent so that the Federal Reserve is much less likely to hit the “zero bound” and lose confidence in its own ability to shape the economy-wide demand picture.

    Sadbeard wants to kill my retired parents and mother-in-law.

    1. Yes, because it is so easy to just program the economy and hit any % inflation you want. And then people will magically get 6-7% raises so they stay ahead of inflation. What a fucking idiot.

  12. So if I call a 32 oz drink a sexual orientation of fetish then Blomberg can no longer stop me from partaking in it.

    1. Only if you put your dick in it.

      1. Damn you. Was going to say the exact same thing reply button wasn’t working.

  13. So, apparently posts in the /archives path won’t allow nested comments whereas those in the /blog path will.

    Sounds like time for the tyranny of competent programming.

  14. “Most people don’t think it’s their place to tell others what sort of sexual behavior is acceptable.”

    If that were true then society would view sex as the BASIC HUMAN NEED that it is and prostitution would be both legal and encouraged for good health. Unfortunately, the puritans still control things in this regard along with their skewed utopian view (propagated by organized religion and politicians)that sex is only acceptable for the chosen few in a long term monogamous heterosexual relationship.

  15. Sadbeard wants to kill my retired parents and mother-in-law.

    Yup. Drive every old person and every person who saved into poverty. I really hate that ignorant little aspy fuck.

    1. Because if someone thinks things we don’t like, he must be autistic! You’re such a retard, John.

      1. “Because if someone thinks things we don’t like, he must be autistic! ”

        What kind of oversensitive aspy idiot gets THAT from what John wrote?

        1. What kind of retard defends dumbass bullshit?

          1. Hey: be more sensitive to the mentally disabled, you dumb fags.

            1. None of this exchange makes any sense, except the part about das Bernank destroying savers.

  16. Hey, I wonder if P. Brooks finally took over the servers?

  17. Sometimes, when you endeavour to persevere, it pays off.

  18. Brooks you magnificent bastard!!!

  19. Yup. Drive every old person and every person who saved into poverty. I really hate that ignorant little aspy fuck.

    Just making more Democrats.

  20. So if I call a 32 oz drink a sexual orientation of fetish then Blomberg can no longer stop me from partaking in it.

    Maybe they could sell 32oz drinks “for entertainment purposes only.”

  21. Threaded comments have died?!?

  22. He forgot to say that Bill Clinton almost got fired for his sexual escapades by the Republicans. Because there is no way his impeachment had anything whatsoever to do with something called perjury. Nope. It was the puritanical counsel Starr and his minions trying to climb into the White House ‘bedroom’. Because it was only about sex.

    How do I know this? Because some conservatives said that now there is an epidemic of oral sex among Tweens and they don’t consider it sex because the President said only penetration is sex and he should be removed from office for that.

    That is kinda the official text book take by the Left these days.

    1. Let’s face it, Bill Clinton almost got Impeached and convicted because, dammit, banging the help may be OK for the Leader For Life of some third world Kleptocracy, but the President of the United States is supposed to have more class. It wasn’t about sex, per se, it was about taste.

  23. I’d forgotten how easy it was to just look at the bottom of the list to see what was new.

  24. Brooks you magnificent bastard!!!

    *I read your book*!

  25. Yes, the dreaded threads are dead. It’s back to olden times.

  26. “The religious group that settled in New England outlawed theater, rejected any form of sex except marital intercourse, banned celebration of Christmas and spent hours in church listening to horrifying depictions of Hell.”

    The bans on theater and Christmas may have been distinctively Puritan, but the ban on extramarital intercourse wasn’t distinctively Puritan at the time, or even distinctively Christian. The modern West is the “odd man out,” not the much-derided Puritans.

    “The expansion of freedom in matters of sex has coincided with a shrinkage in matters of health. New Yorkers would laugh at laws policing sex, but they elected a mayor who has no problem trying to control other physical indulgences.”

    If you think there’s so much freedom in the area of sex, try denying birth control to your employees. If you’re a innocent of doing any harm to your spouse or kids, good luck citing that fact in order to retain custody. Try even *joking* about sex when you’re in the workplace, much less engaging in sex.

    Freedom simply has not expanded where sex is concerned, though the focus of repression has shifted.

  27. Threaded comments have died?!?

    P. Brook’s name is a nested-thread killing word.

  28. If you think there’s so much freedom in the area of sex, try denying birth control to your employees. If you’re a innocent of doing any harm to your spouse or kids, good luck citing that fact in order to retain custody. Try even *joking* about sex when you’re in the workplace, much less engaging in sex.

    It has been a real bait and switch hasn’t it?

  29. P. Brook’s name is a nested-thread killing word.

    Thread’dib! The slow comment penetrates the thread!

  30. Lack of threading almost makes up for the demise of Google Reader. Except that, as Night Elf Mohawk noted, we still have threading on the /blog posts.

  31. Re: Tony,

    I agree that there is legitimate reason to worry about the fact that in a society in which healthcare costs are socialized, in theory people have an interest in the health-related lifestyles of others.

    You agree to a reason yet you do not indicate the reason itself. Unless I am mistaken, the reason behind your conclusion is that people should be more interested in their bottom line than on other people’s ability to make choices.

    Why do you want to place profits over people? Oh, why oh why?

    If you think there’s so much freedom in the area of sex, try denying birth control to your employees.

    Non sequitur. Denying birth control is not the same as curtailing a person’s choices on sex.

    If you’re a innocent of doing any harm to your spouse or kids, good luck citing that fact in order to retain custody.

    Why would the decision of a judge on a custody case have any bearing on your ability to engage in voluntary sexual encounters? You’re confusing liberty with license, an error you commit every time you bring the subject. Freedom and liberty mean the ability of making a choice; that does not mean you get to make the choice with absolutely no consequence, but you still have the ability. What people like Bloomberg want is to deny you the choice, which transates to curtailing your freedom.

  32. “Why would the decision of a judge on a custody case have any bearing on your ability to engage in voluntary sexual encounters? You’re confusing liberty with license, an error you commit every time you bring the subject.”

    Assume you’ve fulfilled all your legal duties to your spouse and children. This used to guarantee that you’d keep custody over the children. Now the judge can put that fact into the background in the interest of awarding primary custody of the children to a cheating or abusive spouse – in the “best interests of the child,” of course.

    Who, exactly, is confusing liberty with license?

  33. So this guy at my work has this scat party in a company-provided hotel room during a business trip. He leaves without cleaning up the aftermath. Most of my colleagues thought he should be fired just for using his hotel room for his fetish which they felt was disgusting. I said if he should be fired at all it should be for trashing the room and he should be afforded a chance to restore it by paying for the damage and out of service time of the room to properly clean it.

    Yes, I work for a private company, but it is interesting that nearly everyone has a limit to what kind of sex they think is appropriate. When I told a colleague that thought the guy should be fired that ‘it could have been anyone of us, i mean who hasn’t had a scat party gone wrong?”, he glared at me in horror not detecting that I was joking.

  34. “Denying birth control is not the same as curtailing a person’s choices on sex.”

    Huh? Hard to tell if sarcastic.

  35. Huh? Hard to tell if sarcastic.

  36. Huh? Hard to tell if sarcastic.

    Let’s try this again…

    Huh? Hard to tell if functioning brain.

  37. Is the reply button not working for anyone else?

  38. And as I post that, I notice no indenting in this thread, answering my own question.

  39. The libs always claim eating and drinking is sexual.
    The libs have gone insane.
    I rest my case.

  40. “Huh? Hard to tell if functioning brain.”

    The administration denies employers the freedom to decide whether to provide birth control to their employees. So we don’t exactly live in the libertarian sexual paradise. Have I missed something?

  41. The administration denies employers the freedom to decide whether to provide birth control to their employees. So we don’t exactly live in the libertarian sexual paradise.

    Does the fact that you can’t get birth control actually stop you from being able to have sex?

  42. Yes, I work for a private company, but it is interesting that nearly everyone has a limit to what kind of sex they think is appropriate. When I told a colleague that thought the guy should be fired that ‘it could have been anyone of us, i mean who hasn’t had a scat party gone wrong?”, he glared at me in horror not detecting that I was joking.

    LOL. As far as your coworker, if one of my employees shit all over a hotel room like a trapped golden retriever, I am afraid I would have lost confidence in his judgement.

  43. Unfortunately, Steve, you’ve got a huge blind spot here. The puritans haven’t stopped efforts to regulate sex AT ALL; they’ve just narrowed their focus to certain forms of it, including (but by no means limited to) commercial sex. Ask strippers, whores, porn actors and anyone who does business with them if puritans have stopped policing sex, and you’ll get a very different view from that of gay activists. And people condemned to “sex offender” pariah-hood for life because they urinated in public, had sex with their high-school girlfriends or sent nude “selfies” before turning 18 would probably laugh at your assertions that “Your sex life is off-limits to government regulation” and “Busybodies have little impact on policy.”

  44. Does the fact that you can’t get birth control actually stop you from being able to have sex?

    Of course not. But the fact that you can be forced to pay for someone else’ birth control means you are not free.

  45. If Welch fires popular contributors over spelling errors, God only knows what he’ll do to the intern who broke the reply button.

  46. Re: Edward van Haalen,

    Now the judge can put that fact into the background in the interest of awarding primary custody of the children to a cheating or abusive spouse.

    First, nobody mentioned abuse and I do not subscribe to the notion that cheating is the same as committing spousal abuse. Let’s get that clear.

    Second, Tony was insinuating that you don’t really have freedom to engage in consensual sex with people other than your spouse because you can lose the custody of your children. But that’s a non sequitur – you cna perfectly engage in sexual activities other than those with your spouse because there’s nobody to use force to stop you, unlike in other times (and today in other places) where you risk serious physical harm if you do.

    The possibility of losing your children in a custody battle is NOT an impediment to engage in sexual activities as described above, merely a potential consequence of it. Tony seems to think that, UNLESS Family Court JUDGES give you license to engage in sexual activities by not considering your past when deciding on custody cases, THEN you are not really free to cheat on your wife or be promiscuous. That’s FALLACIOUS.

  47. What Maggie McNeill said.

  48. Of course not. But the fact that you can be forced to pay for someone else’ birth control means you are not free.

    And that wasn’t the point OM was making when he said “Denying birth control is not the same as curtailing a person’s choices on sex.”

    At least, I can’t believe that was the point he was making.

  49. Re: Edward van Haalen,

    “Denying birth control is not the same as curtailing a person’s choices on sex.”

    Huh? Hard to tell if sarcastic.

    Read the post again and you will see that Tony is referring to granting free birth control. I am merely stating that denying employer-paid birth control to an employee is not the same as curtailing their sexual choices.

  50. Anal sex can lead to torn rectums, which can result in greater healthcare costs.

    Ban it.

    As matter of fact, sex in general could possibly lead to any number of medical problems which will cost the public money.

    The only solution is to regulate sexual intercourse so that only licensed parties can engage in it.

    God, I see why Bloomberg is such a ban-bunny. All of this self-righteousness is really getting my dick hard./sarc

  51. denying employer-paid birth control to an employee is not the same as curtailing their his or her sexual choices.

    There, fixed it.

    Where’s the “preview button”????? I demand a preview button!

  52. I keep trying to tell you you are barking up the wrong tree trying to appeal to progressives by making ‘principle of the thing’ arguments.

    ‘If it’s wrong for you to tell me what I can do with my body in one regard, it is wrong for you to tell me what I can do with my body in other regards’ relies on being able to look at general principles of the past to guide future actions. Deductive reasoning is inherently conservative reasoning.

    Progressives inherently believe that it is just plain wrong, unfair, unjust, immoral even, to judge any single issue in context with any other issue. All issues deserve a de novo treatment.

    What does the freedom to put whatever drugs I want into my body have to do with the freedom to put whatever food I want into my body have to do with the freedom to put whatever sex objects I want into my body have to do with the freedom to put whatever pointied metal objects I want into my body?

    Ask a progressive why it’s okay to ban the one thing but not the other and I can guarantee you the first words out of their mouths will be “Oh, but that’s different.” And in their mind, it is something completely different.

  53. (Which is why only conservatives are ever tainted by the term ‘hypocrite’ – the failure in a specific instance to live up to a standard set forth by they themselves as a general principle. You can’t call a progressive a hypocrite for saying one thing and doing another – the saying and the doing are two totally separate, unrelated issues.)

  54. I see that some of my remarks have been caught up in a debate over Tony’s comments, bless his heart.

    “The possibility of losing your children in a custody battle is NOT an impediment to engage in sexual activities as described above, merely a potential consequence of it.”

    And my argument is that a spouse who fulfills his/her duties to spouse and kids should keep custody of the kids, period. Our “no-fault” divorce system allows innocent spouses to be deprived of child custody.

  55. Is the reply button not working for anyone else?

    Nelson Muntz sez “Hi.”

  56. Ask a progressive why it’s okay to ban the one thing but not the other and I can guarantee you the first words out of their mouths will be “Oh, but that’s different.” And in their mind, it is something completely different.

    Considering most progressives appear to follow the Kantian rules of motive driving morality, I guess it’s not a stretch to see that say every situation must be considered a priori.

  57. Does anyone on this site even know what the Puritans did for this country? No, the only thing you seem to remember is their stance on sex. Try reading the Mayflower Compact which was the first form of civil government by the settlers. Maybe you don’t like Harvard, or other universities that they founded. Maybe you don’t like the fact that they believed in a strong work ethic,education and a strong family unit. Everyone uses the Puritans as almost a curse word, but much of our Constitution was based on laws that they enacted.
    It’s so easy to point out the “failures” of a group of dead people when it suits you isn’t it? Try looking at the whole picture before you start labeling actions or people by something you know nothing about.
    I am against any form of tyranny by a group or government that decides something is for my own good or for my safety, aka national security, gun control,Obamacare, taxation to pay for their domination etc. I am a Christian Libertarian who is really fed up though with people constantly equating Puritans and any type of government overreach. After all, they left Europe because they were being told what to believe and how they could practice their beliefs. Sounds like a good grounding for the Bill of Rights doesn’t it?

    1. I think you’ve got a rose-colored-glasses view of the Puritans, whom you’ve confused with Pilgrims. The Pilgrims wrote the Mayflower Compact. These were separatists from the Anglican church. Angry Puritans, who felt that the church had failed. The Puritans who came later were Reformists…Calvinist…a truly dour bunch. All of that “he must have got something up his ass” pretension of the Eastern bluebloods – that is the Puritan bloodline.

      There were actual advocates of religious freedom that came to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, most notably Roger Williams, founder of Providence and Rhode Island Colony, expelled by the Puritans because he argued for freedom from religious persecution.

      One cannot ignore the Puritan’s vile harassment and mistreatment of the Quakers, or their expulsion of Anne Hutchison and her children , after which they were murdered by savage Indians.

      Rather than being the protectors of religious freedom, the Puritans should best be viewed as the close-minded zealots they truly were. They were the ultimate hypocrites, wanting freedom for themselves, but not for others who dissented from their viewpoints. Not a very tolerant society at all. In the name of religion, they did bad and evil things, and it is important that we remember not the Puritans, but the Founders, as the guardians of the principles of freedom and liberty and people like Roger Williams as the first brave colonials to fly the flag of separation of church and state.

      1. By the way, I fear when I read comments like yours, that the American public school system has failed us, because how can anyone get through American history and be unfamiliar with these enormously significant events and people? In any case, it was a long time ago..and it doesn’t much matter now in our daily lives, except possibly to theologians, but at least as a general backstory, its important that modern people understand how dangerous the union of religion and State power can be.

        And what better way to do that, than to know and understand the history of religious persecution right here in our own land?

        1. Isn’t it the case that the US in large measure was originally populated by the losers of religious wars in Europe? The Calvinists especially. But also Catholics in Maryland, though I don’t know the story behind that.

          I took a history class where they professor liked to talk about the landing of these religious rejects in the North East, and their subsequent migration patterns through America. He liked to relate how our current political map directly relates to this.

          I suppose if you look for it, you can see this Calvinist mindset in virtually every facet of culture and politics. Most people seem unaware of it though, having never known anything else.

  58. Pjmer,

    They also changed. They quickly realized that the city on the hill was not going work quite like they thought it would and started letting non puritans into the colony. In addition, they were called “puritans” because they rejected the the state sponsored religion of the Stewarts.

  59. Re: Tony

    “Shifting subsidies away from toxic crap and a car culture and toward healthy food availability and a walking culture doesn’t alter anyone’s life with respect to freedom of choice.”

    Like the freedom to choose how you spend your money. Little something called misallocation of resources. Might want to look into it.

  60. ” Isn’t this the same Chapman that swears to us that the Republicans have us perpetually a hop, skip and a jump away from A Handmaiden’s Tale ….. ”

    Under the Republicrats, we’re only a hop, skip, and a jump away from Oryx and Crake, and The Year of The Flood. Who knows what depths DC will hav descended to by the time the third book comes out.

  61. As long as they don’t make illegal to fuck a 32 ounce soda I’m good.

    1. If its under 14 oz, it is jailbait.

  62. The reason Statist control freaks can justify their Puritanism is because of the welfare state. It is self-perpetuating through this very mechanism, its a feedback loop. If no welfare state, then no reason for the State to be so absorbed in controlling people’s personal choices. But it is indeed totally schizophrenic that they are hands off about truly impactful and destructive policies that are detrimental to the public welfare, health, safety, and general happiness, to wit, immigration, which they have failed to regulate and control the negative impacts from; overpopulation, related both to the immigration crisis as well as the lax attitude towards sexual conduct, etc.

  63. Puritanism dead?

    I wish.

  64. I don’t buy the argument that “The public must spend x dollars because of behavior y, therefore it can regulate y.” The public *chooses* to spend x dollars: it’s a pure gift and conveys no power to the giver.

  65. It was disingenuous to exempt 7/11 from this ban. No wonder it was struck down.

  66. until I looked at the check four $5877, I did not believe that…my… brother woz actualy erning money in there spare time at there labtop.. there dads buddy had bean doing this for only about six months and just repayed the loans on their cottage and bought a new Mazda. we looked here, http://www.fly38.com

  67. uptil I saw the bank draft which had said $4886, I did not believe that my mom in-law realy taking home money in there spare time on their apple labtop.. there neighbour started doing this for less than seventeen months and by now repaid the debts on their place and purchased a great new Saab 99 Turbo. I went here, http://www.wow92.com

  68. Kendall. if you, thought Francisco`s stori is shocking, on tuesday I bought a great new Saab 99 Turbo after making $6459 this – 5 weeks past and just a little over $10 thousand this past-month. this is really the most financialy rewarding I have ever done. I started this 8-months ago and straight away was making more than $83, p/h. I follow the details here, http://www.wow92.com

  69. This article seems to take the viewpoint that the government is no longer regulating the private sex lives of its citizens, i.e. we now have sexual freedom. That is certainly not the case. Prostitution is illegal everywhere in the United States except for a few counties in Nevada. Many strip clubs are forced to keep customers more than 6 feet away from the strippers. There are many other regulations to make sure that nobody can enjoy going to a strip club.

  70. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.
    ???? ???? ????? ???????
    ???? ????? ????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.