It is difficult to determine which is more depressing — the content of modern legislation or the ridiculous acronyms used to name said legislation. In the case of the Credit CARD (Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure — get it?) Act of 2009, it's anyone's guess.

Those who look up this bill (H.R. 627) will no doubt breathe a sigh of relief when they realize that, when the bill takes effect on Feb. 22, 2010, the government will finally be putting taxpayer money to good use regulating those most fraudulent mechanisms of bourgeois oppression: gift cards, a provision that will take effect in August 2010.

More important for many college students, however, are the measures contained in Title III, “Protection of Young Consumers.” One such measure prohibits people under the age of 21 from acquiring a credit card without a 21-plus cosigner or the permission of the federal government.

So if you thought that as an adult you could make financial decisions for yourself, it turns out the government disagrees. And yes, the government, which is $11 trillion in the hole, is going to keep you out of debt.

The bill also includes provisions disallowing companies from giving any "tangible item" to students who sign up near a college campus or event. These measures are apparently a reaction to the issues described in a USA Today article “Credit cards go after college students.” Credit card companies often give things such as T-shirts, flying discs or pizzas to students who fill out applications. As these types of marketing practices have increased so has student credit card debt — $2,169 in 2004 and $8,612 in 2006.

If those marketing practices have not caused students to harm themselves, then there is no need for regulation. If, on the other hand, students are bringing themselves to financial ruin for a pizza, I agree that there is great cause for concern, but I'm much more disturbed by the decisions of these students than the actions of the credit card companies. People are 100 percent responsible for their own financial decisions and the consequences.

If students truly are as foolish as the article indicates, the least helpful thing would be for the government to legislate to the least-common-denominator and prohibit these “predatory” practices one by one.

There are innumerable ways to get into trouble financially and we students will not be in college or under 21 forever. Instead of offensive and paternalistic government “protections,” we as a generation (or a society, if we can manage it) should once again embrace the principle of spending less than we make.

The culture of irresponsibility will continue as long as the government continues to act like our parents, robbing us of the opportunity to be self-reliant. It may seem heartless to propose that the government allow some people to fail, but if the position smacks of Social Darwinism, it's only because the situation seems like something out of the Darwin Awards.

Send Noah your credit card number for a T-shirt at nnzarr@asu.edu.