There are lots of things that are legal, and should stay legal, that I don’t want my daughter participating in. I don’t let my daughter hang out at the mall without an adult or have a video game console in her room, but other parent’s make different choices. I think prostitution should be legalized but certainly hope my daughter does not become a hooker. On the other side of the equation, I grew up drinking modest amounts of alcohol in the home with my parents (ie wine with dinner), and feel strongly this pays benefits later in life in the form of more rational approaches to alcohol, but I am legally barred in Arizona from taking this sensible parenting approach with my kids.
Oh, and by the way, as a word of advice to Mr. Levitt: While you may be happy to see your daughter as a future poker champion, or you may want her to have the option of an abortion, a large portion of America thinks that your daughter making these choices is roughly equivalent to shooting heroin or engaging in prostitution, and they are going to try to ban them, and maybe even put her in jail for doing so. In your theory of government, your hopes and dreams for your daughter rely on being able to out-vote folks who have very different hopes and fears.
This flawed view of government thrives in Washington because it neatly reinforces the ego and hubris so characteristic of politicians. It essentially calls on 535 people in Congress to substitute their judgment for that of ordinary Americans on a zillion different questions, large and small. Because in reality, Mr. Levitt’s philosophy of government plays out not as the government banning what I think is wrong for my daughter, but what Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner think are wrong for their daughter’s.