As the 2016 draws down to a close, I’ve been writing more and more about the Ballot Measures, as people are busy going back and forth on how to vote on them; whether to vote a blanket NO as I’ve seen both Republicans and Democrats advocate on social media.
I’ve pondered what to write on Initiated Measure 21, one of the measures restricting access to short-term loans in South Dakota. As you’ll see in the advertisement to the left from “Give Us Credit South Dakota,” they make a couple of good points in their propaganda to vote the measure down.
- Initiated Measure 21 allows more government intrusion into your personal financial decisions.
- It will end access to short-term loans in South Dakota.
- And it’s going to cause a lot of jobs to disappear in that industry.
We’re facing yet another challenge to our freedom where a group of zealots are proposing legislation to take away rights, and put more weight behind the heavy hand of government. It’s a horrific nanny state measure that some claim is protective. But it’s not. It’s OVER protective, removing people’s ability to make their own determination of what’s best for them.
I wondered what else to say about it when I realized I provided the best argument against supporting the measure back in February. So, here’s my column back from February 16 of this year:
George McGovern on short-term lending: Freedom means responsibility
As the advocates for more and more government control continue to press their case on many issues, including in the instance of payday lending which we’ll be seeing on the ballot this fall, I came across what one South Dakotan had to say on the topic, former United States Senator and liberal icon George McGovern.
In an extensive column on the topic which appeared in the Wall Street Journal, even this conservative Republican has to give George McGovern credit. Because unlike his liberal successors who seem hell bent into casting our society into socialism, he finds value in the system he fought in World War II to defend. To be free, and to choose our own destiny; even if others might not agree with that freedom:
Nearly 16 years ago in these very pages, I wrote that “‘one-size-fits all’ rules for business ignore the reality of the market place.” Today I’m watching some broad rules evolve on individual decisions that are even worse.
Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics, including calls to regulate subprime mortgages. …
… The real question for policy makers is how to protect those worthy borrowers who are struggling, without throwing out a system that works fine for the majority of its users (all of whom have freely chosen to use it). If the tub is more baby than bathwater, we should think twice about dumping everything out.
Economic paternalism takes its newest form with the campaign against short-term small loans, commonly known as “payday lending.” …
…With payday lending, people in need of immediate money can borrow against their future paychecks, allowing emergency purchases or bill payments they could not otherwise make. The service comes at the cost of a significant fee — usually $15 for every $100 borrowed for two weeks. But the cost seems reasonable when all your other options, such as bounced checks or skipped credit-card payments, are obviously more expensive and play havoc with your credit rating.
Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn’t perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who’s familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next.
.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.
“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.” That might be the best point in the entire article. Because that’s the problem. Our society is at a cross roads because that’s exactly what too many people are trying to do.
As opposed to giving people the freedom and responsibility to manage their own affairs, we are faced with a perpetually growing government charged with treating the population as they would an infant, as we surrender more and more of our freedoms. And it’s the same thing that payday lending opponents are doing with legislative and ballot measures. It’s a smothering and overwhelming altruism.
Is it a healthy society whose every action and decision is evaluated and controlled because someone decided it was for our own good? As a conservative Republican I don’t think so. Neither did liberal Democrat George McGovern.
Because, despite our vast differences, I believe we both shared the same vision of America as the land of freedom – not the land of socialism and government control.
I can only hope my children and grandchildren will be able to experience a free country as I was able to experience in my lifetime. But, I have my doubts. Because as we continue to travel down a path of fewer and fewer freedoms, I think there will come a point when we will question whether we can call ourselves a free society at all.