My default position is that the authorities must not hesitate to go in to protect children who may be being abused. But I also have strong beliefs about the sanctity of the family, and believe that the state should interpose itself between family members only as a last resort -- which, obviously, an abusive situation requires.

But what is abuse? Is it always clear? Under the law, there's no doubt at all that having sex with underage teenage girls is by definition a crime, whether or not you call her your "wife." In the state of Texas, a person under the age of 16 cannot consent to marriage. And obviously, polygamous marriages are not recognized as marriages. If teenage girls are being forced into polygamous marriages and into sexual relationships, the state has a responsibility to get in there and stop it. If no one will protect those minors, the state must.

But. I've been trying to think about this situation in light of the fact that the fundamentalist LDS cult (Tom Wolfe says the difference between a "cult" and a religion is political power) is unpopular, and I certainly find their beliefs and lifestyle repulsive. But this is a free country, and as such, I have to tolerate a certain amount of repulsiveness; my own religious freedom depends on it, and so do yours. But tolerance can only go so far. 

Al Sharpton is back in the news with his vow to close New York down to protest the acquittal of three police detectives in the death of Sean Bell. The AP story somehow omits to note that two of the three NYPD detectives against whom Sharpton now seeks to lead his lynch mob are are black. So far they have been protected from the likes of Al Sharpton by due process of law.

Sharpton's long career as the race hustling leader of lynch mobs is one of the continuing disgraces of our public life. How is it that Al Sharpton has assumed this position of leadership in matters allegedly pertaining to race? Though he is accorded an absurdly respected role in the Democratic Party by politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, he is easily one of the most vile men active in American public life. 

The mere fact that something is illegal to produce will tend to reduce the supply of it in most commercial channels. Yes, if someone really wants to download obscene materials, they will go ahead and purchase it online, and download it. You won't find it available as a "premium" channel when you check into a hotel, however, nor will it be offered by your cable provider. We can argue about whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but the fact is that when you make something illegal, it removes it from "respectable" distribution channels.

You always have to ask the question: will removing a commodity from "respectable" channels make much of a difference with respect to the social problems that you seek to solve? Drug addicts will still seek out their drug, even if it is illegal. Most people will not seek it out, even if the drug is legal.

The people that are likely to be removed from the market for the drug are those who were not addicted, but were using it occasionally -- and they aren't usually the problem. The real gain may be the people that do not even start to use the drug because of its illegality, and who wish to avoid the stigma or the risk of purchasing through black market channels. I am not sure that the analogy of obscenity to drugs works very well. While there are people who are addicted to obscenity (in a psychological sense), I do not get the impression that they are the mass market for it. Making obscenity illegal means that a lot of people who occasionally watch the clearly illegal materials will find it more difficult to obtain. For many, this will be enough of a barrier to switch them to erotica that do not violate the Supreme Court's Miller test, or find some other source of entertainment.

There's also a measure of hypocrisy to all of this. Gov. Richardson is a staunch supporter of red-light cameras. Mayor Fenty supports his city's red-light and speed cameras, despite the fact that D.C.'s red-light cameras have been plagued by charges of corruption, poor maintenance and the tendency to issue tickets to innocent motorists. Gov. Rendell presided over the installation of the first surveillance cameras in Philadelphia (after, it's worth adding, a $75,000 campaign contribution from the company that was awarded the contract to install them).

All these politicians have supported laws that could generally be seen as anti-motorist, be it allowing for camera surveillance of public roads, increasing fines and punishments for traffic offenses or adding new offenses to the books. All sanctimoniously sign these bills while mouthing high-minded rhetoric about public safety (usually, such bills are more about generating revenue for city coffers). But the minute "public safety" conflicts with their own sense of self-importance, these politicians are quick to dispense with the laws they expect the rest of us to follow.

"Come on, these are just people a bit down on their luck." Most people begging are not individuals in temporary difficulties, but people who are dependent on a begging income. This is almost certainly to fund a serious drug habit. There are many people on the streets needing help and support. Many people asking for your money are serial beggars. There are many services seeking to help people sleeping rough. Please work with them, not against them. Giving to people who beg is not a benign act. It can have fatal consequences.