In a recent article, Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger whom I respect a great deal, argued that a wide variety of reforms offered by libertarian and conservative think tanks and policy organizations represent nothing more than "libertarian paternalism."

Reform efforts he attacks in his article include school vouchers, Social Security, and health care. What it all boils down to is that Hornberger is not an incrementalist and, he argues, those who are incrementalist shouldn't label these reforms "libertarian." That's fine as far as it goes, but I think Hornberger oversteps in calling these reforms "libertarian paternalism."

Some libertarians, like Hornberger, believe that any and all government intrusions are unacceptable and the only solution is to dismantle them immediately and completely. Government-run schooling, federally-managed transfer systems, and welfare are three biggies. I can see why Hornberger doesn't want incremental reforms labeled "libertarian" because they're not necessarily, but that doesn't make these reforms any less important or valid.

School vouchers may not be the best public school reform, but Hornberger had nothing but praise for Dr. Milton Friedman upon his passing...well, who came up with vouchers besides Friedman?

Social Security and health care reform follow the same basic lines. The ideas being proposed by Cato and others are not designed to completely eliminate government programs, but to maximize individual freedom and personal control. That's not a bad idea in a political environment in which political leaders and even the public are hostile to even modest reform, not to mention the radical reforms Hornberger prefers.