I have written a lot recently on the topic of consistency in opposition to big government, which may make it seem this essay is a bit redundant, and it really is. I am covering the same ground as I have recently. Then again, I think it is a topic that needs to be covered, perhaps over and over. Why? Because it seems that those who claim to be in favor of smaller government can't quite understand consistency.

Let me draw an example. Suppose you met a man who spoke at great length, with a lot of enthusiasm, about the need for marital fidelity. He would wax poetic about the benefits of remaining faithful within your marriage, of the need to wait for marriage before engaging in physical relations. In short he would speak so eloquently Bill Clinton would think of giving it a shot. And then, at the close of his great oration he added, "unless you meet a really cute girl, of course. Then all bets are off."

What would you think of such a man? Would you think him a great advocate of marital fidelity? Or would you think his single exception pretty much destroyed his entire argument?

Well, that is how many "advocates of small government" come across.

I first noticed it when the "oil crisis" rhetoric was in full swing. People who supposedly believe in the free market suddenly started saying that the oil industry was one exception. That if we "allowed" drilling in ANWR, the oil companies should be prohibited from selling oil overseas. Or else they would argue that "the free market got us here", and argue that government really should be involved in the production of energy. (Of course, the fact that oil prices rose when oil was in short supply is exactly how the free market is supposed to behave and is a good thing, but somehow everyone forgot that when they couldn't get as much cheap gasoline as they wanted. So much for principles, at least when it comes to gassing up the SUV.)

And once again, we are hearing the same idiocy in the face of a nominal "crisis". As I wrote before, supposedly conservative, small government conservatives are coming out for "regulation" to prevent "the excesses of greed", or else are saying that perhaps the massive bailout really is necessary. And just as with my fictional fair weather friend of fidelity, these conservatives are basically signaling surrender to the liberals.

How so?

Well, let me use another example. The supposed conservatives who argue that "sometime unions are necessary, they are just going too far right now", or maybe the ones who argue that we need to "prevent out sourcing to save industry". It doesn't really matter which concession to big government you pick, they all work out the same.

Let us suppose we take the union argument. The question then arises, when are unions good and when bad? And once you draw that line, you have already conceded everything the left needs. For if coercive collective bargaining agreements and government enforced labor laws work, then why limit them at all? And if the government has the right to force businesses to negotiate with organized labor, why not to force a minimum wage law or health coverage? And if they can force businesses to provide health coverage, why not provide universal coverage through the government? In fact, if the government can ignore rights to accomplish "good things", then why draw any lines at all?

The problem is, once individual rights are breached, whether the right to contract, the right to property, the right to speech, whatever, no matter how small that breach, you have granted the government unlimited power. Only by viewing the government as the deputy of the citizen, limited to the same actions a private citizen could take on their own, for their own protection, and constrained by the need to observe the rights of every citizen, only when it is fenced in with those restrictions does the government have any check on its powers.

Once you grant that the state has powers denied to its citizens, be they self-defense or the right to limit distribution of pharmaceuticals,  you have created an omnipotent state. Similarly, once you say the state can violate the rights of another citizen, or can force a citizen to do something "for his own good", you have created the framework to justify an oppressive state.

I know this sounds extreme, and it is. But the truth is, the same logic that justifies popular measures such as the war on drugs justifies every speech code, every nanny state intrusion, and every other excess that conservatives find so offensive. Once you can be coerced for your own good, there is no logical stopping point.

The choice really is total freedom or various temporary layovers on the road to slavery.

POSTSCRIPT 

Some clever person is going to try to argue that imprisoning another is a power a private citizen does not have, but that is not entirely accurate. A private individual, in a state of nature, has the right to defend his person and property, using lethal force if needed. So, a citizen could rightfully kill a murderer, someone who assaults him, someone who steals from him, or someone who defrauds him. Thus, if he can kill someone, so can the state. That the state chooses to exercise a degree of mercy and not execute all law breakers, but rather imprison them for a period of time, is not a special right conferred on the state, but simply an extension of the rights conferred upon the state from the individual. If it truly offends the sensibilities of some, I would happily revert to execution as a punishment for all crimes against persons and property, thus eliminating this argument, but somehow I doubt the people making this argument would find that a pleasant alternative.

POSTSCRIPT II

A few may also notice that my argument also argues against common modern practices such as involuntary commitment, "psychiatric holds" at hospitals and the like. However, as regular readers know, I have often spoken against such practices. In my mind there is something inherently troubling about depriving a citizen of his freedom based upon the opinion of another, even if that person is nominally an expert.

Let us just look at the question without the patina of respectability granted by involving "medical professionals". Suppose your local community was endowed with the ability to imprison based on the suspicion of future criminality. Would you feel secure knowing that a neighborhood committee could imprison those they consider a likely threat before they have committed a crime? Would you feel the same way if a few of your neighbors had a grudge against you and were the ones who made up the committee selecting those to imprison?

Not that I am suggesting that involuntary commitment is used to settle personal scores. But even if it is used entirely for the intended purpose, it still troubles me. Psychologists and psychiatrists are not omniscient, nor are they without fault. Which means that in at least some cases they are depriving people of liberty who are no threat to anyone.

Oddly, those on the left who argue that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent man, and who oppose the death penalty because of the chance of error, are perfectly comfortable (for the most part) with psychiatric opinion allowing imprisonment for an undetermined duration.

Of course, I don't think it is any secret that I have a great deal of doubt about modern psychiatry, both its tendency toward biological determinism and it habit of turning every behavior into a disorder, not to mention its tendency to bow to political pressures. And I won't even mention the way that psychiatry is often manipulated to produce desired results in criminal courts. So it shouldn't be surprising that I am more worried than most by the power granted to psychiatric professionals. On the other hand, when there was talk of preventative detention powers being given to courts, I was just as frightened by that. For that matter, I am troubled by drunk driving laws which work effectively as preventative arrest. In my mind, imprisonment is the outcome of the commission of a crime, nothing else. No matter how certain we are someone will commit a crime, until he takes an overt step, we have no right to deprive him of freedom.

But this entire subject deserve a more complete post, so I will cut this short for now.

POSTSCRIPT III

Please don't imagine I am taking this argument to the other extreme. While I do believe in limiting the state, I am not about to start drifting into the absurd fear of the state, or denying the state the right to self-defense. I do believe the state is an important tool, just one that should be endowed with very limited scope and granted strictly defined powers.