RALEIGH — A couple of years ago, it was fashionable in the North Carolina General Assembly to think so ill of payday lending that it deserved little more than a quick death.

Now, according to a large majority of members of the NC House, it’s time to bring payday lending back?

What gives?

Well, the reality is that actual North Carolinians, quite apart from their would-be protectors in political life, find the convenience of a short-term loan against their next paycheck to be worth the expense. In the face of the state’s punitive regulation, much of the payday-lending industry simply went on as before, with national quick-cash firms claiming exemption from the new rules by partnering with banks chartered in other states. Emery Dalesio of the Associated Press explained this pretty well in a story filed Thursday.

Rep. Bill Culpepper, a Chowan County Democrat, introduced a bill this session to restore the ability of North Carolina firms to compete in the payday lending market. In selling the idea to the House this week (it passed Thursday on a 79-32 vote), Culpepper argued that the re-entry of local competitors to the national chains would help to drive down interest rates and improve service.

Someone’s been reading his economics, lately, Who knew state legislators had the time — or inclination?

Opponents of the bill continued to argue that it would legalize a practice abusive to young and low-income workers. This is paternalism, served straight up. I admit to some concern about some of these lending practices, to the extent that they employ confusing and misleading claims and contractual language to defraud desperate borrowers. The government has a legitimate role to play in ensuring that market exchanges are free of force and fraud.

But my experience is that most users of payday lending know exactly what they are doing. Lacking easy access to credit cards or a savings account, they view payday lending as an attractive way to handle cash flow problems that would otherwise lead to checking-account fees even larger than the lending fee. No doubt a few of these borrowers overuse the service and become trapped in a cycle of debt. Most do not.

Here’s the dividing line between advocates of limited government and advocates of expansive government. The former think that responsible citizens in a free society can and should take responsibility for their own actions. The latter think, well, that’s just too mean. They think that government-as-parent should swoop in to bail out the unwary.

The problem is, this isn’t just bad economics or bad legislating. It’s bad parenting! Learning often comes after painful mistakes. The parent who shields children from the consequences of such mistakes inhibits their growth in knowledge and judgment. In the case of personal finances, most of us have learned what to do and what not to do by screwing up one or more times. That’s just one example of how human beings thrive when they have choices. Properly understood, paternalism should embrace personal freedom and personal responsibility rather than trying to smother them.

I’m not suggesting that payday borrowers are children. That’s how the would-be payday prohibitionists view them — children who should never have to grow up.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.