Control freaks lose a round

Advocates of leaving people along to make their own choices won a small victory yesterday when the New Hampshire House voted down a measure that would have banned greyhound racing and shut down the state's tracks. By a solid vote of 198-138, state lawmakers turned aside the latest attempt to outlaw an activity -- actually, two activities if you count both the racing and the gambling -- that is considered politically incorrect by a well-funded cadre of finger-waggers.

To judge by the news reports, however, the debate over the bill was depressingly devoid of libertarian sentiment. The control freaks predictably claimed that racing dogs is cruel and that gambling is a moral failing, and the victorious opponents of the ban argued primarily on economic grounds, citing the potential cost in jobs and revenue for the state. Few people, if any, seem to have come right out and said that the issue is none of the government's business.

That's a shame, because keeping government within its proper boundaries is the most important argument. It ties together issues that otherwise have to be dealt with in a patchwork way. That's not to say that the economic arguments have no validity -- they're important for winning over the fence-sitters and pragmatists. But beating the control freaks requires going to the core of their argument -- their claim that they have the right to dictate to the rest of us -- and not just dealing with the surface details.

But a win is a win. We'll take 'em as they come.