Imposing Virtue by Government Edict Is Impossible
If you want to abstain from drinking or observe the Sabbath, then abstain from drinking and observe the Sabbath.

During my first trip to Salt Lake City, I wandered from my hotel room in search of a drink, found a modest pub, and went to order a beer or three. "Sir, this is a private club," the bouncer told me. I headed toward the door feeling dejected and confused. This certainly doesn't look like an exclusive joint.
At that point, the bouncer started laughing, realizing that I was the latest out-of-towner who was unaware of Utah's Mormon-inspired booze laws. He could sell me a temporary membership for five bucks, to which I happily obliged. I still have that membership card in a drawer somewhere.
To reduce drinking, Utah banned bars, but allowed an exception for private clubs—so bar owners came up with a workaround that accomplished nothing other than adding a fee on bar hoppers. It was a reminder of Dwight D. Eisenhower's words: "We have never stopped sin by passing laws; and in the same way, we are not going to take a great moral ideal and achieve it merely by law."
Utah eliminated that silly private-club requirement in 2009, although states still have vestiges of these so-called "blue laws," which refer to Puritan-era relics that restrict alcohol sales and certain activities such as shopping on Sundays (to observe the Sabbath). The term likely is "based on an 18th-century usage of the word blue meaning 'rigidly moral' in a disparaging sense," according to Brittanica.
Oddly enough, a new group of post-liberal (in the free-market sense of the word) conservatives is pushing for a restoration of these religious-based laws. Pressed for policy prescriptions in their traditionalist agenda, Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule and the New York Post's Sohrab Ahmari floated the idea of restoring the sanctity of the Sabbath.
"A campaign for the Sabbath can bring together labor unions, religious conservatives, and small-business owners (that last group historically opposed abolishing blue laws for lack of ability to compete)," Ahmari wrote this month in The American Conservative. Yet Ahmari inadvertently points to one of the major problems with these laws.
Instead of promoting virtue, they become a means by which special interests—such as small businesses and beer distributors—abuse the legislative process to limit competition. For instance, alcohol distributors and unions have united to oppose California legislation that allows distillers and breweries to ship their products directly to consumers. It's a cynical—not moral—effort.
Likewise, small businesses try to ban Sunday store hours to give them a leg up in competing with big-box stores. Plenty of crazy blue laws still exist, of course, especially in the Bible Belt. States impose myriad limitations on liquor sales, car sales, and other activities on Sundays, most of which are the result of interest group jockeying. These days, such laws will only move more commerce online.
These rules merely annoy the public. If you want to abstain from drinking or observe the Sabbath, then abstain from drinking and observe the Sabbath. California has relatively few such restrictions (although our state has plenty of other asinine restrictions on work and commerce) and other states have been relaxing them over the years.
"Texans can buy beer on Sundays but not diapers," noted a 1984 article in The New York Times. "A woman in Mississippi cannot pick up a pair of stockings on her way to church. In New Orleans, people can buy anything on Sundays, but they are compelled to go to…the French Quarter to do so." Why would anyone want a return to those days?
The goal of using government to achieve socially conservative ends is, as conservative writer Thomas Fitzgerald argued, "another bit of modernist utopianism, sure to be as brutal, yet brittle, when confronted with political reality." Americans simply will find absurd workarounds—just as drinkers had done for decades in Utah. Government will have more reasons to control, fine, and harass us.
These Christian conservatives ought to ponder Jesus' dealings with the rule-bound Pharisee religious leaders, who were aghast after he healed a man on Sabbath. "Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out?" Jesus retorted. He was concerned about our inner selves, not our outward piety.
Even non-conservatives are toying with the idea because of its goal of reducing the burden on workers. "Rest is hard to come by these days," wrote Joel Mathis in a column arguing that blue laws might help. "Post-religious American capitalism doesn't leave us much room to just relax." Yet few people are working seven days a week.
Mandating that businesses close Sunday won't do anything other than reduce jobs and give the rest of us fewer opportunities to go shopping and live our lives as we choose. Then again, I don't want the government to make us virtuous. I just want it to leave us alone.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If you want a shot, get a shot. If you don't, don't.
Now that's just crazy talk. Next you're going to call yourself a libertarian.
Criminalizing the coercion of lying is easily done.
The courts where justice is the objective is one example.
This will advance virtue, giving the constitution a chance to work.
That’s a lie.
The Holocaust denier wants to outlaw lying.
Absolutely!
Criminalizing lying will be the final nail in the coffin of the holocaust lie.
I’ve demonstrated that you are a holocaust denier.
"Imposing Virtue by Government Edict Is Impossible"
Now let's talk about racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia.
The legitimate purpose of government is not to change people's hearts. That's the purpose of reason and persuasion.
CRT propents feel otherwise, but I guess it depends on what one calls a virtue.
“ racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia” are all based on lies.
Racism and sexism are based on the lie that one is better than another based on race or sex.
Homophobia is based on the lie that discrimination against disorders is wrong.
Xenophobia based on the lie that it is rational to fear people who are different or unknown.
We can’t seem to stop lying to ourselves unless it is illegal to lie to others.
So you want the government to enforce your virtue of not lying.
There is one definition of virtue;
1 : morally good behavior or character
That you associate that with me is flattering.
That you want nothing to do with it is concerning.
A Neo-Nazi who claims he's not racist or sexist, but still hates Queers and Furriners. This is a new one on me. 🙂
You demonstrate your bigotry by claiming what you will never prove.
Don't forget saving the environment. Wired did a story on how electric vehicles are slow to take off in the USA compared to Europe and China, because they cost more and aren't as convenient to refuel and don't have the same range. And found an expert who said the biggest reason was Trump.
https://www.wired.com/story/evs-us-investment/
Those barriers include resistance from consumers who are used to the ability to quickly fill up with gas and go, a lack of awareness of the strengths of EVs, and price problems: An electric Ford Focus costs nearly twice the amount of a gas-guzzling one.
“There’s one major protagonist who has influenced that: Donald J Trump,” says independent EV analyst Matthias Schmidt. Trump’s administration paused the adoption of EVs for four years, setting back the development in a country that was already lagging behind.
Not sure what "paused the adoption of EVs" means. Anyone who wanted one could still buy one.
At least Trump recognized Tesla existed.
“Imposing Virtue by Government Edict Is Impossible"
Equity is a Virtue!
I've seen government. I don't think there's any danger of those parasites, whores, morons, and child molesters trying to impose any virtue on anybody.
You think virtue is an imposition.
THE one "magic ingredient" missing from your list is "hypocrisy". With hypocrisy, we can do ALL things! We can (pretend to) be all things to all people!
Imposing Virtue by Government Edict Is Impossible
I don't think it's conservatives forcing women to stay at home and cover their faces.
Weird for us of the article for the claim of the headline. Is that the worst example of forced values by government you could find? Especially after the last 2 years?
Weird focus*
If you stamp “science” on thing you are trying to force on people, that makes it different.
Definitely. Still, I'm not opposed to pointing and laughing at this example. I'll golf clap for him finding an example of ridiculous local rules by conservatives.
It's inspecting a scratch in the floor trim while continuing to ignore the elephant that seems to have moved into Reason's livingroom
BOFE SIDES!
Does this mean that I don't have to pretend the man dressed as a woman is a woman at all? That two men are actually married? That I have to use the word Latinix?
That is not virtue, that is science.
#transwomenarewomen
#ilovescience
#sorryOBL
Supposed to be a reply to JohannesDinkle
Did a Black woman write this article?
Be better, Reason.
You need to promise that the next article you publish will be from a Black woman.
Your imaginary friend wants you to refrain from doing some things on Sunday? Then don't do it -- and don't impose the Sunday prohibitions on those whose imaginary friends say not to do them on Friday or Saturday.
And sue don't impose them on those of us who don't have imaginary friends at all.
Yeah the ascendant theocrats who are openly campaigning on a platform of compulsory church attendance are a major fright. Not the 60% of Democrats who want people who refuse to be injected with drugs they don't want to take sent to internment camps.
Fucking clown.
And this is the biggest problem right now, as the Dems plan to spend another 2 trillion dollars and go to war with Russia?
LOLOLOL
When are midterms again?
Doesn't really matter since we'll have federalized the election laws that Wisconsin just realized a year and half after the fact are unconstitional. Why the fuck do you think Democrats are gung-ho to end the filibuster? Because they are not concerned with ever being out of power again.
So, let's see. The lead off example of conservative social control is a law that was repealed thirteen years ago. But, a couple of conservatives have advocated for blue laws. But, even Greenhut acknowledges that the appeal is also to the left.
I'll stipulate that I think Vermeule and Ahmari's idea is dumb.
But, trying to extrapolate from that to any sort of claim that liberty is under dire threat from conservative Christians trying to legislate their ideas of virtue is just silly. The Babylon Bee guys are conservative Christians. Hell, Ron Paul is a conservative Christian. Yeah they're the guys I should be quaking in my boots over. Nevermind the people assigning me guilt for my sex or skin color. Please ignore the people telling me what pronouns I can and can't use. Or taxing me for smoking a cigarette. Or telling me I have to wear a mask on the street. Or threatening to ruin my life for looking at the boobs a woman has put on public display. Or insisting only they can decide whether I can have a gun. Nope. The big threat to my liberty comes from the Christian down the street who's reluctant to repeal blue laws (but is generally willing to argue the issue with me on friendly terms).
I moved from NYC to semi-rural South Carolina. That's technically the Bible Belt. And, as a libertarian, I can say I'm orders of magnitude freer here than I was there. If I want to go buy a gun, I go buy a gun. If I want to have a fireworks show for the 4th, the high school wrestling team has a stand selling them in the Wal-Mart parking lot (and not just bottle rockets - real fireworks like you'd see at a fireworks show). If I want to go out to dinner, I don't have to think about masks or "vaccine status" or any such nonsense. Heck, I've met guys who still their own whisky.
Libertarians are being played for suckers. The trope of the Christian fundamentalist theocrat gets pushed on us by the very progressives who insist that it's their divine right to organize every last detail of our lives in service to their religion. And so libertarians are supposed to be terrified of working with people whose interests align with libertarian values on a host of issues (school choice, freedom of association, etc.).
South Carolina, land of awesome fireworks. Everybody North of the Border knows it.
The Christian team had its day and it will have it again. When the Republican Party was the liberal wing of the Christian Coalition. Y’all still have your Roy Moore types; if they don’t happen to be sitting as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of any particular state at the moment, they’ll be back in the saddle soon enough. So I’m happy to see that people who care about liberty will be on guard against that day.
Laws against Sodomy and Crime Against Nature remain on the books in 13 States even after Lawrence v. Texas and 8 States still forbid Atheists from serving in public office all because of Christian Fundamentalist Theocrats. Ditto with laws against gambling and prostitution in every State as well as a good size of supporters of "The War On (Some) Drugs.
Funamentalist Christian Theocrats have a long way to go before I would consider any of fhem to be allies of Libertarianism.
And can't be enforced. That the legislature didn't bother repealing them after they were mooted is inconsequential. Ditto for the 7 (not 8; the idiotic social media meme you got this from was wrong about Pennsylvania) states that have provisioins in their state constitutions forbidding atheists from holding public office. Those were mooted a century and a half ago by the 14th amendment and numerous supreme court rulings. Since amending a state's constitution is a lengthy process that would not be benefitted in any way by removing a provision that's already been mooted, those 7 states haven't bothered. If you weren't a brain dead sack of shit you'd probably also realize that half of those states are deeply Democratic. Please tell us all about the Christian fundies in Maryland keeping the poor persecuted atheist off the ballot, you fucking clown.
Not every state has laws against gambling or prostitution you ignorant fuck. Outside of your deep blue urban bastion of freedom there's this little state called Nevada. You might have heard of it, there's this little city of about 2 million people there with a couple of small gambling operations, and every country in the state besides 1 has legal prostitution. Less than a decade ago its governor was a conservative Republican who attended a charismatic pentacostal evangelical Christian church.
But hey, at least you've got a great point about the war on drugs. Now that the entire federal government is once again under the control of the rational, hyper-intelligent, freedom-loving Democrats, the drug war has ended, just like it did under the first president to freely admit to using cocaine and weed.
Fucking clown.
Oh, and South Carolina went up on it's gas taxes a few years back and took away any good reason for North Carolinians to visit. So much for "Render unto Caesar..."
Here's a sneak preview of Greenhut's next column:
"Does anyone else find it suspicious that Teamster leader Jimmy Hoffa hasn't been seen in awhile?...."
Short as it is, I got bored and didn't finish it. Did I miss the part about the massive forced wealth transfers? You know, the virtue of helping other people or supporting other causes? Where politicians and bureaucrats take our wealth by force and give it to other people and organizations we might not voluntarily give to ourselves?
Not 'socially conservative; ends.
socially responsible ends.
The people behind all this are nanny stating, proto-SJWS-- progressives, adherents of the social gospel.
And often they're not 'conserving' anything. They're 'progressing' to an alcohol free future where women don't suffer catcalls or lewdness from drunks. Where people are properly with their communities, in church on Sunday--by law.
Social authoritarians. Social collectivists.
Greenhut barely pointed out the control of commerce for alleged social engineering as being a motivating factor for liberal and conservative, more moral than you, know better than you, buttinskies.
The libertarian point, is that government shouldn't be controlling commerce, speech, or behavior that doesn't harm others. Government shouldn't have the ability to be busybodies managing vast aspects of our lives, because it makes us less prosperous by giving power to nannies instead of individuals.
It's better not to legislate virtue and manners, because it allows the rude and bigoted to show themselves so we can avoid them. Today, the woke and socialists are telling you they want to control you more.
Well, that would be the libertarian point if libertarians were something other than Marxists who don't like to pay taxes.
On one hand a gazillion rules, regulations, and laws that control every facet of our lives from dawn to sundown. On the other, a law that says stores can't sell beer 'til noon on Sunday. I choose the latter.
I don't really get why they call these kinds of laws "Puritan-era". The pilgrims, mostly puritans, landed in Plymouth and set up the colony there literally because they ran out of beer on their way to the Jamestown colony in VA after a two month voyage having stocked 1 gallon of beer per day for a year for every single man, woman, and child on board. Sure, they had laws on "moderate" alcohol consumption but it seems their definition of that term was quite different from today. Of course beer was the safe beverage of choice given the lack of understanding of water borne pathogens.
Beermaking as a craft was preserved for centuries by Christian monks. What atheists don't know about Christianity could fill a thick, leather-bound book.
Because they were progressive era laws and we can't admit that.
DM4-SPDB ADC
https://adc.bocsci.com/product/dm4-spdb-cas-1626359-62-3-477039.html
DM4 with a reactive linker SPDB, which can react with antibody to make antibody drug conjugate. DM4 can bind to tubulin at or near the vinblastine-binding site.
The American system is about freedom of and from religion - the polar opposite of “theocracy” where the government imposes religion onto it’s citizens.
The First Amendment’s religious clause was created because Christians were persecuting other Christians. Primarily Baptists were being punished and killed by the Anglican Church (Church of England).
America fought a Revolutionary War in large part due to “theocracy” fighting for freedom of and from religion. Blue laws are as un-American as it gets.
No, you fucking clown. You do not have any right to be free from religion, because if you did, nobody would have a right to practice their religion. If you don't like religion, don't join one. You don't get to tell other people how to conduct their lives so they don't offend your special snowflake 14 year old reddit atheist sensibilities. Take your thought-policing SJW bullshit, nail it to a cross, and shove it up your asshole sideways.
The correct term for them is "sex workers".
Government has banned that in the cause of maintaining their collective virtue.
We would also accept 'men'.
The preferred nomenclature is "chicks with dicks".