steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes: |> 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.    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."