In article <16APR199317391664@rigel.tamu.edu> gmw0622@rigel.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes: >In article <1993Apr16.124824.29405@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes... > >>  >: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 assume you mean that analyzing the cost/benefit ratio of government >regulation on a case by case basis is worthwhile.  Let me suggest that >this is not an option.  Regulators regulate,  it's what they do.  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.   > >	It might be possible to pass an amendment which would prevent >any liscensing laws from being valid,  assuming you could convince people that >it would overall be a good idea.  Eliminating the liscensing laws which >serve no good purpose (the vast majority of them) while maintaining the >worthwhile ones (assuming there are any) is not  feasible.  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 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 > >I note that the above examples tend to be among the few government areas  >likely to win some approval among libertarians anyway.    Actually, the only areas of public spending above that strike me as  generating substantial support among libertarians are police and defense. (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...)  >The most objectionable government expenditures are entitlements,  which >also are the biggest.  Certain individuals will suggest that these should be >considered defense on the grounds that they are a sort of Danegeld to >would-be revolutionaries,  but I personally don't feel we have much to fear >from an alliance of geezers and unwed mothers.  Maybe I've led too >sheltered a life.  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.  jsh > >Mr. Grinch