ABSTRACT
In November 1998, fourteen neighborhoods in Chicago voted to shut down their liquor stores, bars, and lounges, and four more neighborhoods voted to close down specific taverns. Chicago's temperance movement reflects a fascinating development in the legal enforcement of morality. Instead of arguing about morals, the proponents of enforcement are talking about individual and social harms in contexts where, thirty years ago, the harm principle would have precluded regulation or prohibition. The same argument about harm has been used to justify the regulation of sexual practices among military personnel infected with the HIV virus. The collapse of the harm principle has significantly altered the map of liberal legal and political theory in the debate over the legal enforcement of morality. Liberal theory prevails in the sense that the harm principle is hegemonic—if only in theory. The original progressive political valence of the harm principle, as well as the contemporary conservative tilt, are the products of particular historical and political contexts.
