In article <18APR199320091677@venus.tamu.edu> gmw0622@venus.tamu.edu (Mr. Grinch) writes: >In article <1993Apr18.174237.11229@isc-br.isc-br.com>, steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes... >>  > >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.       I'm afraid that I've lost the thread here.  I didn't suggest that all  government regulations be subject to referenda.  So I don't follow the  comments above.  >>  >>  >: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?  I mean that an ideology that treats all government regulation as equally undesirable and seeks to abolish all regulations is unlikely to draw support among more than a miniscule portion of the electorate.  Furthermore, I am suggesting that such a plan is not feasible in an industrial society because the weight of litigation and/or misery it would produce would effectively crush productive effort. > > >: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...) > >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.  No, I'm not surprised.  I just think it's interesting that on one hand libertarians assume a limited government can be decreed, yet on the other posit an entire government made up of people who carry guns.  (I realize that many libertarians assume that such a government will be  counterbalanced by a fully armed citizenry, but it is worth noting that widespread civilian ownership of guns does not necessarily prevent the establishment of totalitarian government, e.g. Iraq.) > >>  >: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?  Yup, sure do.  But since I also support the constitutional requirement that the government provide for the general welfare (Article I section 8), I'm willing to justify such programs on that basis. > > >	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?  Well, in the first place, I don't support a "socialized economic system." I think within limits that capitalism is a fine idea.  But it is not the case that "any third party...is...as likely to be ignorant or corrupt as the buyer or seller."  There are multitudes of examples where such a statement is demonstrably false.  Regulation of stock market transactions that provide a reasonable basis for buyers to avoid fraud is only one example.  jsh  >Mr. Grinch