Well said!
July 30, 2010 | Financial Reform Bill - CFPB | Comments (1)Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution makes an excellent observation about the conflicting liberal values of freedom of choice and government protectionism.
I am curious about the modern liberal take on autonomy and credit. Let’s say that two gay men, of unknown health status, want to have informed, consensual, unprotected sex. Should the law prohibit this? I believe the answer is no. Furthermore it is not just a matter of enforcement difficulty, it is a question of autonomy. If you don’t think so, modify the example so that two heterosexual people want to have consensual but unprotected sex. And so on.
The unprotected sex is riskier and less prudent than borrowing money at an annualized rate of two hundred percent. Why prohibit one and not the other? Many of the borrowers are being fooled, but others have legitimate reasons to seek the money, such as wanting to buy a birthday present for a visit to one’s child, living with a separated spouse.
Comments»
The problem with that analysis is it assumes the liberal viewpoint is obligated to both logic and consistency. Those are two items that rarely fall in line with liberal thinking and almost never co-exist within in the same argument.