
Excellently put!

Even as a libertarian, I have to admit government does do some things I
like.  There is a beautiful performing arts complex in Ft.  Lauderdale
that was partially built with tax dollars (I don't know how much was
private and how much was stolen, I mean public) but it is beautiful and
I enjoy it.  (Keep in mind, though, most of the people in the city will
never attend a single performance there, so they might feel differently
about having to help pay for it.)

However, I have to disagree about it being desireable or efficient to
give government intervention-power on a case-by-case basis.  In fact,
we have a lot better luck maintaining our freedom of speech precisely
because it is not decided on a case-by-case basis as much as other
issues.  Judges decide whether political speech is allowed on the
sidewalk in front of the post office.  They do not try to decide just
whether pro-nazi, pro-choice, pro-life, or pro-tax political speech
should be allowed on the sidewalk in front of the post office.  You can
imagine the result if right to free speech was decided by the majority
on a case-by-case basis.

Not so with economic issues.  Government does tell taxi-drivers exactly
what they can charge, but not the bus lines or the lawyers.

Just as it is not desireable to decide rights of free speech on a
case-by-case basis, we should not decide rights to free enterprise on a
case-by-case basis.

There is hope that a government can be restricted from interferring with
free enterprise.  But there is no hope, in my opinion, of having a
government that interferes with free enterprise in an "efficient"
manner; I call it political market failure.

Thus, if you value freedom and the abundance it produces, you have to
swallow the "whole libertarian agenda."