What’s wrong with “The Worlds Smallest Political Quiz”

Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded “safety net” to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business.

That’s it, right there. Significant government control of the economy is not the same as a government funded “safety net” to help the disadvantaged, nor is it the same as strict regulation of business.

Significant government control of the economy is our current system of corporate welfare, tax deductions, trade deals with special dispensations, and the like. All of these things are meant to encourage certain economic behaviors and discourage others.

If we got rid of all of that, imposed a flat tariff on every import without favoritism or exception, had a flat income tax with no loopholes or special deductions, and did the ultimate socialist thing: paid every American citizen (even the ones with jobs) 40,000 dollars a year tax free for breathing; that would not amount to significant government control of the economy. Not even with strict health and safety standards and social security thrown in.

The difference between the “socialist” system in the second example and our current system is that in the second example we aren’t trying to control the economic activity of people or companies in any given direction. Taxes might be high, but that doesn’t stop people from making more money or even discourage them from making very high wages. Social security doesn’t encourage or discourage saving, so while it does sort of violate the overall ethos of the low control system, but it doesn’t amount to much compared to the current level of control imposed through corporate welfare and the like.

Strict health and safety standards… well, you know, I don’t think we’d actually need the workplace safety standards if there were a basic income, because employers would not be able to rely on the desperation of the workers to have them tolerate poor working conditions. But I’m okay with restaurants being required to have health inspections, because this is not merely for our safety, it’s for the prevention of fraud: restaurants typically claim to have food for sale that is fit for human consumption. I suppose if a restaurant wanted to advertise plainly that it did not not allow health inspections and did not in any way guarantee the safety of its food, that would be fine. But that’s a standard too, and a strict regulation as well. It just doesn’t amount to control of the economy.

Environmental regulation is a property rights and personal rights issue: the rain and the wind go onto everyone’s property and into everyone’s body, water and air regulations are ways to enforce the property rights and personal rights of everyone. Climate change is a serious issue that will affect literally everyone’s property values and standards of living, it’s a proper place for regulation. Again, this isn’t control of the economy, it’s protecting the rights of citizens against having a resource they depend on and own (eg. their lungs) destroyed by another entity (eg. a coal plant).

The worlds smallest political quiz apparently equates wanting to stand up for your property rights with being a liberal. That’s a weird version of libertarianism.