What I often notice when reading people's thoughts on politics is how inconsistent their thinking is. I know that many dismiss the "slippery slope"argument, but it really is valid. Many argue that they can "draw a line", and allow the banning of pornography yet prevent any harm to "important' speech, but the truth is, once you accept the justification for banning pornography, you can no longer argue rationally against any other argument using the same justification. So, by accepting that justification for one position, you have, whether you intended to or not, accept any other argument logically supported by the same reasoning.

Let us look at three examples.

First, let us look at that pornography argument. Or rather, let us look at the host of arguments which flow form the idea that "the airwaves belong tot he public" and "we should make sure they are used in the public's interest". Those are the usual arguments advanced to prevent shows that are considered offensive on broadcast television and radio. However, the problem is, once you argue that the airwaves are not owned by those who hold the license, but subject to control by the will of the public, how can you argue against the Fairness Doctrine, for example? Is not the Fairness Doctrine just an attempt to make sure that public airwaves carry all sides of the argument for the public good? The same logic which allows us to censor offensive speech also justifies the Fairness Doctrine. And more. For, if you accept that public airwaves must serve the public interest, what argument is there against any restriction of content? How could you even argue against massive government intrusion up to and including complete nationalization of all broadcast media? The logic is the same.

Or, let us turn from the public airwaves and look at the other type of crusade for decency, the one which argues that pornographic materials, violent video games, and other things they find offensive should be banned, or sold only under restricted conditions, or regulated in some other way. However, the logic here is even more sweeping than the argument above. The rationale here is that the public good can allow restrictions on the content of speech or print material. Once we have allowed that, how do we argue against campus speech codes? Against campaign finance laws? Against any restriction on speech whatsoever? I doubt most who campaign against pornography or violent games would think they are supporting speech codes or other restrictions on speech, but once you allow that speech can be curtailed "for the common good", how can one argue against any other restriction?

Another example comes from those who oppose government meddling in business, such as CAFE standards, or anti-pollution laws, yet at the same time oppose NAFTA, or support import restrictions. The problem is, there is no difference in the arguments for protectionism and all other types of government interference in commerce. The protectionists argue that the government has to interfere to "level the playing field" against foreign nations, or to prevent the loss of jobs. But those same arguments can be used to support measures the protectionists oppose. "Leveling the playing field" can be used domestically to support laws against big companies which have an "unfair advantage" against smaller companies. "Protecting jobs" or even "creating jobs" can be used to justify almost anything at all. And, of course, they can simply argue that as the government can interfere to protect domestic industries, to level the playing field, or save jobs, should it also not be allowed to protect the environment? And given that the protectionists have argued that individual rights are no impediment to other intrusions, they really cannot now argue that individual rights are being violated, but only when it is a law they dislike.

Finally, let us look at the war on drugs. Now many support the war, thinking that they are doing a good thing as drugs do untold harm to individuals, families, and so on. Yet those same people complain about the "nanny state". However, if you think about it, the argument is the same. Drugs are illegal because consuming drugs harms you and costs society. Transfats are being banned because eating transfats harms you and costs society. The logic is identical. In fact, taken to its logical extreme, there is almost nothing that cannot be justified by the logic of the war on drugs. If the state has the right to use all its power to prevent you from harming yourself or imposing costs on society, not only can it tell you what you can or cannot drink, eat, smoke or inject, why can't it also tell you what you can read? After all bad thoughts are more harmful than bad food, so why not ban thoughts that might harm you, or impose costs on society? Likewise, what is to prevent it from taking over rearing your children? Bad child rearing does them untold harm and costs society, so why should the state not have unlimited power to intrude? And the list goes on and on.

And really, that is the biggest problem here. There are many who call themselves conservative, who claim to prefer limited government, yet are happy to allow omnipotent government in this area or that. But once you allow government omnipotence, you cannot put that genie back int he bottle.

As long as government is limited to being the collective enforcer of the individual rights to life, liberty and property, that is as long as it is restricted to punishing uses of force, fraud or theft, as well as peaceably settling disputes through civil courts, the government is held in heck. The lines are drawn and it is clear where it can and cannot go. It is unable to do any more than an individual could justly do for himself.

Once you break those boundaries, the logic inexorably pushes us toward an absolutely unlimited state. Even if you only allow it to do something innocuous, such as set minimum wage laws, it is the crack that is needed to bring all those walls down. After all, if an individual is not free to negotiate his own wages, but must be protected form making a bad decision, then why not prevent him from making some other bad decision? And if we can force him to avoid bad decisions, can't we force him to make the right ones? And... Well, the logic is easy to see, as is the end point.

Of course, this does not mean there is some mechanistic process or set schedule. Nor is it a fixed, one way process. Humans can be inconsistent, at least for a time. Sometimes even with the logic of omnipotent government we sometimes move back toward individual rights. However, such lapses into freedom are temporary. The one thing that humans are is consistent int he long term. We may briefly allow for inconsistencies, but int he long run the prevailing logic always has its way. Humans simply do not deal with inconsistencies well over time, and so, no matter what they may individually want, once a state has admitted the logic that argues for government intervention, the pressure will be toward an ever more powerful and intrusive state.

Some may doubt this, but think about it and you will see how it would work.

Imagine we have minimum wage laws, and they are widely accepted as good. Let us suppose that someone proposes a mandatory 40 hour week. Some oppose it arguing that people should be free to choose how many hours to work. However,t he other side points to the minimum wage laws and argues "We already say you can't accept pay that is unreasonably low, why should we allow you to work too many hours?" It is an impossible argument to avoid. Even if other factors allow the anti-40-hour-week forces to win for the time being, eventually the argument of the big government side will win. And each such victory will give another argument in the future.

It is an inexorable process. The schedule is not fixed, the path it takes may be a bit winding, but, once we accept that the government can violate individual rights for the common good, the end point is unavoidable. There is no destination except an all powerful state.