Andrew Sullivan today argues for consistency on the part of social conservatives. If conservatives decide that some pleasures should be illegal for the social harms they cause, don’t conservatives have to ban any pleasure that might do social harm? And if conservatives allow some pleasure that might cause social harm (like gambling) don’t they have to allow all pleasures? This is one of those cases where Emerson’s warnings about “foolish consistency” kick in. Libertarians are consistent, to a fault. There’s always a need to balance pleasure and privacy with potential social harm. In every case, the balance is bound to be different. So society has to decide where to draw the line. I’ll have more to say about this soon in a piece on NRO.