Americans no longer have a clear concept of freedom. We have platitudes, and our emotions can be manipulated by the appropriate symbols, but there is nothing under it. There is no willingness to be deprived of any immediate gratification to maintain freedom.

Two seemingly unrelated items in the news demonstrate this point.

First, a poll was taken asking citizens about their perceptions of the presidential candidates. John McCain was seen as a better leader than both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but both Democrats "cared" more than McCain.

This means nothing except that Americans report back to the press the same stories they are fed. Our opinions and beliefs are so shallow that the current crisis is whatever the press holds up as the crisis of the week.

Second, did you notice something interesting in the reporting of food shortages? What was the immediate response of both reporters and customers?

The demand for rice increased. The response was to call for rationing and government intervention. There were also some dark and disturbing reports that some people were "hoarding" rice.

So how does one demonstrate that they care? How is a person compassionate? Is it simply a matter of emotions? Even more relevant, is compassionate the same in private action as it is manifested in public policy?

Let's look at a scenario that actually has an historical basis. Suppose that there are people who are hungry and even starving. A compassionate person would try to take care of those around him or her. Obviously, if a person has no food to give, then no matter how compassionate that person is, they can not give aid to neighbors who are in need of food.

Demonstrating compassion as a public policy also rapidly meets realities upon implementation. Is it more compassionate to make sure that all have equal access to food at price controlled rates, even if this means that no one has enough and the shortages will last almost forever? Or, is it compassionate to arrange policy in such a way that the fewest number of people are harmed, and the crisis is rapidly resolved?

Famines were produced in sixteenth century Belgium and made worse in eighteenth century India by price controls. In a famine in India 100 years later, the government did not intervene and allowed a free market solution. Fewer people died and the famine conditions were shortened.

When prices rise in local famines, the unregulated prices go up, and it is then in the best interest of "greedy" merchants to bring in food and distribute it, something they do much more efficiently and speedily than do bureaucrats whose salaries are dependent on pleasing superiors, irrespective of need.

A good grocery chain, like HyVee, feeds more people and at a lower cost than any government would ever arrange, even though the chain does it to make money.

Yet it is very difficult to believe that a modern government would allow a free market to work during a famine.

I imagine that if we truly had a food shortage, or even if the press reported one that was not real, the feds would nationalize all aspects of food production, food distribution, food pricing and all promotions related to food.

The only complaint we would hear from Americans is that the government didn't do it fast enough.

We would line up in long queues begging the government to assume dictatorial powers in exchange for our daily ration of bread.

As demonstrated by Katrina, Iraq, the public schools, the failure of poverty programs and almost any governmental program chosen at random, the food shortage would then last forever, and dictatorial powers would be needed forever.

Our tyrants would stand under copies of the Constitution and tell us how free we are, and how our hunger would go away if it were not for "enemies" out there somewhere who are responsible for our food shortages.

So who cares more, a politician promising more immediate gratification, more money and power to a central government with more and more nanny and Big Brother qualities, or someone advocating human freedom even if it causes temporary pain?

If you want to give away freedom, there are always those who will take it. They will not look like Hitler. They will look like a better version of ourselves, and they will be preaching the gospel of false compassion.