The troubling inconsistency with supporters of limited government

I’m a big proponent of limited government. We spend too much, many citizens expect too much, and the government does too much to do much of anything well. Over the past few years, the number of people supporting these views, or at least being vocal about them, has increased dramatically. This is great, except for one thing: There is a lot of troubling inconsistency.

People have begun to decry the growing welfare state, increasing regulations, and rising taxes, yet many of these same people have a startling lack of respect for individual liberty. For the most part, many social issues are somehow separated from the limited government debate.

I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I’m pro choice. I’m married to a woman, and would never want to marry a man, but I support same-sex marriage. I have no interest in trying marijuana, but I believe it should be legalized. Support for these three issues are normally associated with liberals, which I find odd.

My issue isn’t with someone’s personal belief on one of the above issues. Rather, it’s the tendency to impose those beliefs on others. By all means, live your life the way you feel is right, but don’t try to force your morality on others through government intervention. Nothing is more inconsistent for those who preach limited government.

Think of it this way: Do you want a liberal creating a law telling you what kind of gun you can buy? If you think that people who dislike guns should just refrain from buying one and leave the rest of us alone, I’d agree with you.

Now, take that same line of thinking and apply it to your thinking about abortion, same-sex marriage, and marijuana legalization.

Be consistent.