Good grief -- who would have ever thought I'd agree with McGovern on much of anything? But as Rick Sincere points out, the liberal icon makes a lot of sense from a libertarian, free market perspective in his column in the Wall Street Journal. After all, what else can you say about a call for both sides of the political spectrum to stop regulating behavior -- in particular, economic behavior -- because some individuals make bad economic choices?

Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

As McGovern points out, most folks who get payday loans and sub-prime mortgages do so with plenty of forethought and do not default on their loans. Why should the government limit or eliminate those options because of the few who do? Why should the government decide what health insurance options are available to the public, thereby pricing many folks out of the market completely (are you listening, Barack and Hillary -- McGovern sounds as if he likes the McCain plan)? Why doesn't the government trust the American people to make its own choices -- and allow those who make bad choices to suffer the consequences and learn from them?

MORE AT HotAir

Posted by: Greg at 05:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.