By Any Other Name

Have you ever noticed that libertarian and liberal both begin with the same five letters? Is it a coincidence, or not?

There are indeed folks who have begun to call themselves 'liberaltarians'. It is as though libertarians are seeing the light.

Somewhat, anyway. The precise nature of the change in heart isn't really important. The fact is that libertarians are a bit of a schizophrenic bunch: liberal on social issues while conservative on fiscal matters. It is fair to ask if you can have it both ways and maintain any philosophic consistency.

Can one really be fiscally responsible in public policy while essentially arguing that social responsibility is a radically different question? Why do we have the freedom to do almost anything we want personally (provided it does not violate that vague and rather self-serving platitude: so long as it doesn't harm anyone else) yet have no such similar freedom politically? Indeed, how can one reasonably argue that financial discipline and personal discipline do not go hand in hand? If you are no good at the one it is doubtful you can be particularly effective at the other.

In short, libertarians are essentially liberals who happen to like fiscal discipline. Yet such is like getting blood from the proverbial turnip. If folks are not personally disciplined they are not likely to be publicly disciplined. After all, we reap what we sow. Sow freedom, reap freedom, with all the errors that must grow from that field. But sow justice, the idea that some things are really right and others really wrong on their own merit, and we improve society by having bettered ourselves.

The FDA's New Food Regulations

In what can only be seen as another shallow attempt by the government to do something which feels good rather than what is substantial, the Food and Drug Administration has proposed that restaurants include calorie counts on their menus by 2012. After all, you already get that information, courtesy of the FDA, on prepackaged foods you prepare or eat at home. Why not have the restaurants do it too?

Oh, let's see: maybe because your health is your job? Could it be that what you eat is your responsibility? Yes, yes, we know the obvious and vacuous reply to that: because those bad old food companies won't offer the information without being forced. Heaven forbid that the American people force it themselves by demanding it on their own, if that's so important to them.

But, you must understand, the government can't have citizens going around looking out for themselves now, can it? Because, of course, they might begin to see something which Washington, and even Lansing and Detroit and Wayne County (albeit to lesser degrees) don't want you to see. You might begin to realize that you're a big boy, you're a big girl, and you can make your own choices in these and other personal areas. You may begin to think that, horror of horrors, you simply do not need government to the depth and degree which government says we need it.

Yet the longer we accept such pandering, the less chance of our becoming truly independent human beings. What really can be said is good for us when we are not able to see it for ourselves?