: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 4 or 6 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.

2 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?
