Book: Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do

Overview
Peter McWilliams presents a vigorous defense of personal liberty and a sustained critique of laws that criminalize consensual behavior among adults. He focuses on so-called "victimless crimes", drug use, prostitution, gambling, consensual sex acts, and similar activities, and argues that criminalizing these behaviors does more harm than good. McWilliams frames his case around the idea that individual autonomy should be respected so long as actions do not directly injure others.
The tone mixes moral philosophy, practical argument, and personal anecdotes to make the case that state intervention in private life is often arbitrary, counterproductive, and rooted in moralism rather than demonstrable harms. McWilliams connects civil liberties, economic costs, and human dignity in a way intended to appeal to readers across the political spectrum, while maintaining a clear libertarian bent.

Main Arguments
Central to McWilliams' thesis is the harm principle: government should only prohibit conduct that causes direct harm to others. He insists that consensual acts between competent adults fail that test and therefore should not be the target of criminal law. Criminalization, he argues, criminalizes victims themselves, fosters corruption, undermines the rule of law, and diverts public resources away from genuine harms.
McWilliams also attacks the moral foundations of prohibition, contending that many criminal statutes are based on religious or paternalistic judgments rather than empirical evidence. He emphasizes the hypocrisy and selective enforcement that often accompany morality laws and argues that legal coercion corrodes trust between citizens and the state.

Evidence and Approach
Rather than relying on abstract theory alone, McWilliams marshals a wide variety of sources: historical examples of failed prohibitions, legal precedents, criminological studies, medical and addiction research, and vivid case studies of individuals affected by enforcement. He points to the social and economic costs of incarceration, the spread of organized crime, public health consequences of underground markets, and the erosion of civil liberties to show the tangible fallout of policies built around prohibition.
The narrative alternates between rhetorical appeals to justice and concrete statistics that underscore the inefficiency and cruelty of current approaches. Anecdotes about people whose lives were ruined by seemingly trivial offenses serve to humanize the argument and make abstract policy issues immediate.

Policy Proposals
McWilliams favors decriminalization or legalization of victimless activities accompanied by sensible regulation rather than punitive measures. He suggests shifting resources from policing and imprisonment to education, treatment, and harm-reduction strategies that minimize risk without criminal penalties. Taxation and regulation of previously illegal markets are presented as pragmatic ways to reduce organized crime and fund public services.
The proposals emphasize restoring proportionality to the legal system: punishing violence and fraud, while treating consensual conduct as a personal matter. McWilliams advocates for transparency, accountability, and judicial restraint to prevent the state from overreaching into private life.

Reception and Legacy
The book found a receptive audience among libertarians, civil libertarians, and reform-minded activists, and contributed to ongoing debates about drug policy and criminal justice reform. Critics accused McWilliams of underestimating social harms and expressed concern about potential second-order effects of widespread legalization. Supporters praised the book for its clarity, moral seriousness, and willingness to confront entrenched taboos.
Over time, some of the book's themes have become more mainstream as jurisdictions experiment with decriminalization and harm-reduction policies, even if consensus about specific reforms remains contested.

Conclusion
McWilliams offers a spirited plea for a legal system that respects individual choice and focuses on preventing real harm rather than policing morality. By combining philosophical argument, empirical evidence, and human stories, he presents decriminalization not simply as policy change but as a defense of dignity and freedom. The book continues to serve as a compact, provocative case for rethinking how societies regulate consensual behavior.