From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Subject: Re: Limiting Govt (was Re: Employment (was Re: Why not concentrate...)
Summary: Promoting competition does not depend upon libertarians
Organization: Free the Barbers, Inc.
Lines: 60
Nntp-Posting-Host: thor.isc-br.com

In article <C5KH8G.961@cbnewse.cb.att.com> doctor1@cbnewse.cb.att.com (patrick.b.hailey) writes:
>In article <1993Apr15.170731.8797@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:
>
>[ These two paragraphs are from two different posts.  In splicing them 
>  together it is not my intention to change Steve's meaning or misrepresent
>  him in any way.  I don't *think* I've done so. ]
>
>>As noted in another thread (Limiting govt), the problem libertarians face
>>is insuring that the "limited government" they seek does not become the 
>>tool of private interests to pursue their own agenda.
>> 
>>It is a failure of libertarianism if the ideology does not provide any
>>reasonable way to restrain such actions other than utopian dreams.  Just
>>as Marxism "fails" to specify how pure communism is to be achieved and
>>the state is to "wither away," libertarians frequently fail to show how
>>weakening the power of the state will result in improvement in the human
>>condition.

		   [Patrick's example of anti-competitive regulations for
            auto dealers deleted.]
>Here's what I see libertarianism offering you:
>...
>This does not seem to me to be a utopian dream, but basic human decency
>and common sense.  A real grass-roots example of freedom and liberty.
>And yes, not having a few people acting as our masters, approving or
>rejecting each of our basic transactions with each other, does strike me
>as a wonderful way to improve the human condition.
>
>   Thanks awfully,
>             Patrick

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.  

jsh
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
"One thing about data, it sure does cut|  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
 the bulls**t." - R. Hofferbert        |  Ma Bell: 509 838-8826
