re limiting govt was re employment was re why not concentrate in article c kh g cbnewse cb att com doctor cbnewse cb att com patrick b hailey writes in article apr isc br isc br com steveh thor isc br com steve hendricks writes these two paragraphs are from two different posts in splicing them together it is not my intention to change steve s meaning or misrepresent him in any way i don t think i ve done so as noted in another thread limiting govt the problem libertarians face is insuring that the limited government they seek does not become the tool of private interests to pursue their own agenda it is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams just as marxism fails to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and the state is to wither away libertarians frequently fail to show how weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human condition patrick s example of anti competitive regulations for auto dealers deleted here s what i see libertarianism offering you this does not seem to me to be a utopian dream but basic human decency and common sense a real grass roots example of freedom and liberty and yes not having a few people acting as our masters approving or rejecting each of our basic transactions with each other does strike me as a wonderful way to improve the human condition thanks awfully patrick let me try to drag this discussion back to the original issues as i ve noted before i m not necessarily disputing the benefits of eliminating anti competitive legislation with regard to auto dealers barbers etc one need not however swallow the entire libertarian agenda to accomplish this end just because one grants the benefits of allowing anyone who wishes to cut hair to sell his her services without regulation does not mean that the same unregulated barbers should be free to bleed people as a medical service without government intervention as some many libertarians would argue on a case by case basis the cost benefit ratio of government regulation is obviously worthwhile the libertarian agenda however does not call for this assessment it assumes that the costs of regulation of any kind always outweigh its benefits this approach avoids all sorts of difficult analysis but it strikes many of the rest of us as dogmatic to say the least i have no objection to an analysis of medical care education national defense or local police that suggests a free market can provide a more effective efficient means of accomplishing social objectives than is provided through statist approaches with some notable exceptions however i do not see such nitty gritty worthwhile analysis being carried out by self professed libertarians jsh steve hendricks domain steveh thor isc br com one thing about data it sure does cut uucp uunet isc br thor steveh the bulls t r hofferbert ma bell
