re limiting govt was re employment was re why not concentrate in article apr isc br isc br com steveh thor isc br com steve hendricks writes i m not sure why you don t consider it an option no one suggests that such analysis should be left to regulators in fact the re inventing government movement provides just such a cost benefit approach to the analysis of public spending libertarians would do well to learn more about it okay let me try to explain this when one votes for such a creature as a senator or worse yet a president one votes not for specific policies but for a general package which must cover all issues for or years as such one s influence is highly diluted i might add that even if one were free to vote on individual regulations the vast amount of time required for considering a particular regulation combined with the very small chance of one s vote making a difference would make it unreasonable to expect the voter to make an intelligent decision with respect to specific regulations sorry but it strikes me that it is the only feasible approach what is not feasible is a wholesale attack on all government regulation and licensing that treats cutting hair and practicing medicine as equivalent tasks i m not sure what you mean by feasible in this case do you mean that are impossible in priciple or merely that it would be undesirable in fact actually the only areas of public spending above that strike me as generating substantial support among libertarians are police and defense of the four you saw fit to mention and education of minors is always another possibility since minors are generally considered not to be responsible to make their own decisions as adults are it is an interesting aside that as committed as libertarians claim to be to a principle of non coercion the only areas of public spending that they frequently support involve hiring people with guns hmmm you say this as if it were surprising yet in fact a necessary consequence of libertarian philosophy all non coersive functions should be dealt with privately therefore it follows that the only functions remaining to the state are the coersive ones perhaps you have may i suggest that you consider that revolutionaries frequently generate support by acting as protectors of geezers mothers and children governments that ignore such people on the grounds that we don t have much to fear from them do so at their own peril much more likely it s drunken teenagers the groups in questionare more likely to be worse off during and after a revolution than before in the unlikely event that you missed my earlier sarcasm let me say this directly the idea that such programs as social security or afdc should be considered defense an idea which has been advanced in ths and other newsgroups is so absurd a lie as to be unworthy of consideration do you seriously dispute this i don t want to seem patronizing but you still seem to be laboring under the delusion that under a socialized economic system it is reasonably intelligent and honest persons like yourself who make the decisions i feel any third party added to a transaction is every bit as likely to be ignorant or corrupt as the buyer or seller i don t expect you to agree with me but you explain why you feel i m wrong mr grinch
