Irresponsibility Destroys Freedom
  by Adam Graham (4/3/08)

I was outraged this past week when I read that a municipal government in Great Britain declared it would take away a couple’s children, if those children didn’t lose weight. It was amazing, because I’d seen many families in the US that looked quite similar to this poor family. The only reason they’d attracted the attention of social workers is because they’d come to them for assistance caring for their youngest daughter, who is developmentally challenged. Thus, Ronald Reagan was right, “The scariest words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

George Washington knew what statists today deny, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” Government the world over has shown itself capable of becoming a serial killer in places like China, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. Government has caused mass starvation in places like Zimbabwe. In our own country, government policies have created a plantation of dependent people who have had noble human instincts like hard work and even gratefulness drained from them by a government system that rewards laziness, illegitimacy, and irresponsibility while punishing thrift, savings, and hard work.

I hear liberals proclaiming that we need to realize that government is full of people just like us. And what liberals need to learn is that, while that’s true, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The State is a dangerous, frightful thing. There are times it is necessary to use it, but it should be used with the greatest care and wisdom. 

However, having said that, this case in Great Britain raises another question. Were the parents in this case being responsible? For the most part, their kids were well taken care of, but given all we know about obesity’s risks and its causes, why did they allow their children to become so overweight? In their latter years, these children are likely to become chronically ill and put a strain on British taxpayers.

They might not even have to wait until later in life. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee writes in his book, “From Hope to Higher Ground” that “pediatric hospitals like Arkansas Children’s Hospital had never seen a case of type 2 (aka adult onset) diabetes in a preteen. Today, that same medical facility and teaching hospital diagnoses a dozen cases a week of children as young as eight or nine years old with type 2 diabetes. A child developing diabetes at that young age is sure to have vision problems in his twenties, a heart attack before he is thirty, renal failure and full kidney dialysis by the time he is forty, and will be dead before he is fifty.” Not all cases of diabetes can be tied to obesity, but it is a huge risk factor. Many of us are as Huckabee wrote, “digging our graves with our knife and fork.”

What a tragic situation. Yet for statists, it presents the ultimate opportunity. While Huckabee eschews the idea of government becoming the “sugar sheriff” or the “grease police,” don’t’ expect our friends on the left to show such restraint. Indeed, the above information is a prime excuse for a government takeover of health care and further government regulation of what we can and can’t eat.

This will be met from protests from many of us on the right, because it’s not government’s job to fix our lives. How are we going to respond?

Some of the loudest voices will come from libertarians, who believe that, unless direct harm is being done to someone else, you should be able to do as you please. Libertarianism makes sense from a philosophical viewpoint. But on its own, it is rather hollow. Libertarians are great at explaining what the government should not do, but come up short in calling for a key ingredient in freedom: responsibility.

Indeed, at times it seems that libertarianism has become the philosophy of teenagers who want to do whatever they want, period. I heard Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian nominee for President rail against private companies monitoring how their employees use the systems that company money is paying for. It seems Badnarik believes you should be able to download pornography on company times with the company’s system, and they shouldn’t be able to monitor how you use their property.

Americans are not libertarians, nor are they constitutionalists. Americans have a healthy suspicion of government, but they are not dedicated to founding principles. Americans can be persuaded to support bigger government, as for many people, government has become the default “when all else fails” answer.

For example, the Social Security System is inherently unconstitutional and it’s little more than a ponzie scheme. Why do we keep it? Because many people don’t plan for their retirement even when given the opportunities to through 401(k)s, and many who do aren’t saving enough. Many of those currently on Social Security would be in the streets or dependent on charity, if it weren’t for the government program. For some reason, many would rather see the government, rather than families, churches, and community organizations, take care of our elderly. 

Sarbanes-Oxley is an unconstitutional anti-business regulation that drives more American jobs overseas, but it came about thanks to the irresponsible and unethical business practices by corporations such as Enron. 

New sweeping powers are being proposed from the Federal Reserve, and you can bet there’ll be a flood of new regulations on sub-prime lending that will freeze out many people from home ownership who, like the vast majority of sub-prime borrowers, can pay their mortgage. The reason: irresponsible borrowers and lenders.

Liberalism, at its core is based on the notion that we are too stupid, too helpless, and too weak to handle our own affairs. We have neither the ingenuity or know how to manage our lives without the almighty hand of government stepping int. For the most part, Libertarianism answers the challenge of people being irresponsible, stupid, and incapable of using sound judgment with a hearty, “So what? It’s their lives.”

That’s an answer most Americans will not accept. Given the choice of letting Americans suffer the effects of their own irresponsibility or supporting government intervention, Americans will choose to let government intervene. Because no man is an island. The irresponsible choices we make can effect others, from higher health care premiums to an increased national debt burden to bail out irresponsible borrowers.

John Adams said that our Constitution was made for a religious and moral people and unsuitable for any other. In other words, it was made for a responsible people whose passions are checked by their own compasses without government forcing them to behave. When people forget this, government will creep forward to snuff out the flame of liberty.

We must cut government, but it’s not enough to propose cutting government. We must change the culture that leads to bigger government. It can’t be done through government force, but through encouraging people to lead responsible lives.

In this fight for a responsible nation, we have many allies, whether they agree with our politics or not. Those who lead people to take responsibility for their health, their money, their families, their communities, and every aspect of their lives deserve our thanks and support.

For my part, I’ve begun a new fitness and health routine. This time, I’ve got an added incentive. I’m not doing it this simply because I’ve packed on too many pounds (more than I would ever publicly admit). There is a far weightier issue this time. I want to stop being part of the problem. I want to stop being a silent liberal argument for why people are incapable of freedom and self-government. I’m going to use my liberty to keep it.

Not everyone has to go on a diet, but we need to take responsibility for the one thing we have control of: our own lives and destiny. While we still have the opportunity.

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of the USA Sentinel.
Content is Copyright ©2006-2010 the individual authors.