Michael Kinsley’s case against William Bennett today contains a logical trick. According to Kinsley, Bennett can’t defend himself on libertarian grounds because he’s condemned libertarianism in all other things. Bennett, for example, condemns marijuana use by the healthy and wealthy, because it erodes social norms that keep more vulnerable people from drug abuse. So, Kinsley says, if Bennett admits that there is such a thing as problem gambling, why doesn’t even Bennett’s own affordable gambling erode the norms that prevent problem gambling in others?

The flaw in Kinsley’s argument is that gambling is legal, while Marijuana use is not. Bennett does not oppose drinking by those who can hold their liquor, or gambling by those who don’t deprive their families, nor should he. It’s perfectly fair to argue, against Bennett, that society ought to legalize Marijuana. That’s a judgment call in which we balance the potential social harms of Marijuana itself, and of a general weakening in anti-drug norms, with the benefits of personal freedom. But since gambling and alcohol are already legal, and since Bennett doesn’t want to ban either, I see no hypocrisy in his actions. And as Kathryn points out, Bennett’s personal policy on gambling follows that of his Church.

The lesson in this is that there is always a balance to be struck between liberty and norms of personal restraint. We can argue about where to draw the line, but it needn’t (and shouldn’t) be all or nothing. Even in the Fifties, smoking, drinking, and gambling were allowed. Bennett’s “vice” is one of the permitted pleasures of that era. Personally, I’m more socially liberal than Bennett. I think that some of our general sexual loosening since the Sixties has been a good thing. But it’s always a question of how to strike the balance. Kinsley is trying to force Bennett into an all or nothing position, when even the Catholic Church doesn’t draw the line so harshly.