Give to Reason, Because We Have to Repeal Bad Laws
Your donations help us take on today's Prohibitionists.

Today is Repeal Day—the day we celebrate the end of Prohibition.
Prohibition was dubbed the "noble experiment," but there was nothing noble about it.
The federal ban on buying, selling, and producing most alcoholic beverages turned a peaceful, artisan booze trade into a black market run by outlaws and gangs with guns.
The only good news to this story is that in the end, after more than a decade of disaster and dysfunction, the feds finally gave up, wiping the ban from the books with a new constitutional amendment.
That's the way it is with public policy: Often the best way to reform government is just to end bad laws.
Here at Reason, that's what we make the case for every single day.
At Reason, we argue for getting rid of entire federal agencies. We push for eliminating stupid, maddening, and counterproductive zoning laws. We show how top-down bans and mandates make everything worse for everyone.
The FDA? The FCC? The TSA? Zoning? The Jones Act? The chicken tax? Yep. Even the chicken tax.
We don't need any of that nonsense! Let's have a Repeal Day for all of it.
We make these arguments with data, dispassion, and reasoned argument. But sometimes we do have to yell a little bit.
Give us your money right now so we can keep on yelling about bad laws.
Even better: Your donation will be matched, thanks to a generous donor. In drink terms, you can think of it as ordering a single pour—but getting a double on the house.
We also make the case against new bad laws—especially those that, like Prohibition, try to stop you from doing, consuming, and enjoying stuff that's already legal and fun.
When politicians try to outlaw PornHub, TikTok, Four Loko, or strawberry-flavored vapes, we're on your side too.
Prohibition has been over for nearly a hundred years. But the Prohibitionists aren't letting up. Neither are we.
Donate to Reason to help us stop the new Prohibitionists!
With your support, we end bad laws—and stop terrible new ones from going into effect.
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
More merch. The good Liz could have a branded rucksack called the WolfePack.
LOL: Wolfe Tote 'ems
Get yours quickly before others wolfe them all up!
I'm making over $7k a month working component time. I saved hearing other people inform me how lots cash they could make online so I decided to look at it. Well, it turned into all proper and has definitely modified my life.
This is what I do... > > http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
Howlazy are these puns getting?
An NPC wearing some of the good Liz’s merch would be a sheep in wolfe’s clothing.
According to Matt, you guys met your goal three days ago.
Quit begging and get back to trashing DeSantis.
So repealing bad laws like Obamacare that Suderman defends so long as Republicans don't have a big government replacement?
Given the magazine's stance on S230, the whole piece came across as a quaint, nonsensical "Ban All The Prohibitionists!" to me.
That's what I was going to say. I know it was years ago, but I remember Suderman's Obamacare articles. His criticism was that it wasn't good, but we basically need to do the exact same thing. He heavily criticized Republicans for pushing to repeal because he thought we needed a law that does most of what it did.
These articles are hilarious to me because each writer is ironically highlighting issues where they personally have a track record of poor journalism and a lackbof libertarian principles
When the first pro-Constitution Supreme Court in generations repealed their own bad law (Roe v Wade) and threw the issue back into the purview of the states where it has always belonged, the freaks and lipstick lesbians on staff all lost their fucking minds.
Reason: “Repeal bad laws, vote democrat!”
Which bad laws has Reason been successful in repealing?
I've seen them vote against the guy who was criticized for reducing the regulatory state.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html
Against the guy who passed First Step.
I've seen Reason advocate for MORE federal zoning regulations.
Not sure I've ever seen them get a law repealed. Instead we reluctantly got more laws, regulations, and executive orders.
If you voluntarily bent the knee to the system, these additional restrictions would not be imposed.
That was Jeff’s stance, if we all just put in the masks, we wouldn’t get the mask mandates.
chemjeff radical individualist 3 years ago
Flag Comment Mute User
This may be difficult for your reactionary brain to understand, Sevo, but if more people voluntarily assumed a responsibility to prevent the spread of infectious disease, there would be no need for mandatory orders from the state to compel mask wearing.
He justifies all his big state asks under the guise it is required because people won't do what he wants otherwise. He made the same claims for welfare, defending it as necessary because people don't donate to charity at the levels he wants. He defended the EPA regulations since people won't stop polluting without it. Every time a justification of the state because people don't do what he wants.
We repealed price controls on airline fares back in the 1970s, and abolished the agency that was responsible for regulating them. The effort to do this was led by Democrats. The result was a spectacular drop in the cost of air travel, massive overcrowding in airports, and large numbers of bankrupt airlines.
So, nothing good since then?
Who is this we? You've consistently advocated for the pro state party.
Carter was the most libertarian president in living memory. No wonder the right hates him so much.
Bookmarked. Just created 2 federal agencies.
Plenty of articles for you on how the presidential race caused him to adopt a lot of this to protect against criticism.
The guy who signed First Step seems to have have abandoned it. And the fascist whom the fake libertarians here love has pledged to repeal it.
https://www.semafor.com/article/06/20/2023/donald-trump-used-to-brag-about-the-first-step-act-not-any-more
Lol. Got the left media narratives down dont you.
When did he repeal or advocate for repealing First Step. Do you even know who the act targeted?
Where did the magazine claim credit for repealing legislation? I missed that part. Or are you arguing against something no one said, as usual?
They claim to be fighting the fight, but are totally ineffective at getting results.
How exactly does a magazine change law? They're not legislators. Seems really stupid and dishonest (as in par for the course in the comments) to mock them for not getting results when they have no power to do so in the first place.
So don’t bother with donating guess.
Don't donate because they're not legislators! The stupid, it burns!
No, don’t donate because they are ineffective at self proclaimed goals.
They make good cases against bad laws, which is the most they can do. Though those who judge laws (and everything else for that matter) based upon partisanship instead of principle (they know who they are) would definitely disagree.
All you do is simp for democrats.
This is why reason will never recieve a single dollar from me
never say never - maybe they take a turn away from progressive culture goals and stick to economics
If the 21st amendment is what success looks like, anti-prohibition is an abject failure.
If the 21st century is what the libertarian moment looks like, anti-prohibition is an abject failure.
So - does Reason gratefully accept your contribution and leave it at that? Or do they flood you with more requests for money? Do they sell your name to lists that generate ever more begging requests?
I donated ten bucks several years ago, and they've easily spent that on postage trying to get me to send more.
"Your donations help us take on today's Prohibitionists."
Listen, I fully support the reporting and research "Reason" does and I contribute to the fund. I also understand that you're just being silly with the slogans - having a bit of fun, if you will. But this borders on self-congratulatory excess. FIRE and IJ "take on" the prohibitionists in court. There is very little evidence that reporting from Reason causes any real world change at all. I converted to liberty in my late teens and I enjoy feeding my confirmation bias here! But how many people have abandoned nanny and daddy statism because of reading Reason articles?
Serious question for the Modern Libertarian Audience... is prohibition the main thing we're focused on here?
Yes, since prohibitionism is the only tool intrusive government has to project its power and authority over the people. If your question is aimed at a narrower meaning - prohibiting the possession and use of substances - then "no."
Yes, since prohibitionism is the only tool intrusive government has to project its power and authority over the people
I don't think the magazine that criticizes Republicans for wanting to repeal Obamacare because they don't have their own fleshed-out bureaucratic plan isn't speaking that broadly. I don't get any sense that Reason is an anarchistic libertarianism. Not even close.
I don't remember the magazine's position to be anything like that and I don't recall any Reason article criticizing their failure to provide an alternative bureaucratic plan. I criticize the Republicans for failing to keep their promise to repeal Obamacare because they are lily-livered opportunistic blow-hard politicians instead of principled statesmen, not because they failed to float an alternative plan.
It depends on what you're prohibiting. If it's coercion the answer is yes.
It wasn’t actually illegal to buy or consume alcohol.