Barney Frank has recently been pushing for legalizing online gambling and expanded freedom in a few other areas.  On this issue I support him.  But in making the case for this he revealed a sadly confused, and quite dangerous, philosophy.

“I would let people gamble on the Internet,” Frank said. “I would let adults smoke marijuana; I would let adults do a lot of things, if they choose.

“But allowing them total freedom to take on economic obligations that spill over into the broader society? The individual is not the only one impacted here, when bad decisions get made in the economic sphere, it causes problems.”

So the basis for government intervention, according to Barney Frank, is whether or not a decision has any impact on other people.  That’s not an unreasonable criteria, but it’s entirely too simplistic by itself.

What government should be concerned with is rights.  The question is not just whether someone else has been negatively impacted by a decision, but whether or not their rights have been violated.  That is the criteria necessary for government action.

But there’s perhaps an even more glaring problem with Barney Frank’s assertion.  He implies that bad economic decisions are less likely to be made with government involvement than when the people are “allowed” their freedom.  This is entirely baseless.

Bad decisions will be made regardless of whether private individuals or governments are making them.  As they cannot be eliminated, and usually not even reduced, through government involvement, the fact that bad decisions impact other people is irrelevant.  The question we should be asking is: what is better at correcting those mistakes that inevitably do arise, a government bureaucracy or a dynamic economy based on freedom and choice?  The evidence overwhelming points to the latter as better able to self-correct and adapt to changing circumstances.