From healthcare to other areas, they benefit because we are more free. Do you actually think France is the engine of the global economy?

From healthcare to other areas, they benefit because we are more free. Do you actually think France is the engine of the global economy?

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/governmen…

I think anyone would say that France is a pretty successful western democracy – I'm lucky enough to spend a portion of my year there, I know many french people and have a good understanding of the economic climate, the work culture, levels of affluence, the challenges they face, etc.

I don't think France is something to aspire to, but then I'm not particularly convinced the US is either. You have lots of different models of “success” in the West, most of which involve policies and general political/social models that US libertarians hate, and for instance, people like you would have made hyperbolic statements about communism, predicting failure, etc 40-50 years ago.

The failures haven't happened. But still, libertarians can't help themselves: it's not enough to admit straight out that you have certain taste preferences. You believe so strongly in limited government that you warp your view of the world such that, say, 60% govt share of GDP in France MUST mean France is a failure as a nation/society/etc. They must be either deranged or secretly hoping to be liberated.

And in the face of difficult-to-deal-with argument you trot out the slippery-slope communism stuff. Pretty weak, is that all you got? Must not be much to this little ideology of yours.

Government is inefficient no matter what it does, but the more you give it, the more inefficient it is. Just look at these current bills and earmarks. $7 billion in earmarks couldn't be included if the total bill was $20 billion. It's so much easier to hide waste, fraud, abuse, incompetence when they are spread to all these different tasks.

You are basically saying that the institution called a hospital should only treat 2 or 3 diseases because the more things you pile on it, the worse it will do them.

This financial crisis was caused by the government screwing around with the market. How hard is that to understand?

Keep living in fantasy land and lying to yourself. I bet you haven't seen this article:
http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/oka_…

He was not. He was a big government politician just like Obama.

You keep believing that the problem is that the magic wand just won't work unless enough people want it to. The real issue is that there is no magic wand.

Heard the phrase, “jack of all trades, master of none”?

No entity (aside from some sort of god) can effectively do a million-and-one things. The more things you pile on the government, the worse it will do them.

Like nearly all government, I would cut all three.

Even Keynes said that government should only take about 25% of GDP as a maximum ceiling. We are well beyond that once you add up Federal, state, and local spending.

You might want to go read a book or two. I'd start with a few on the 20th century since you seem to know nothing about it.

As for the rest of your beliefs, I can some them up as follows: government is god.

“Reasonable libertarians don't think the state shouldn't do anything, or that markets should do everything. We're just more skeptical of state activity, and we need more – what's that word? Right, evidence – that a government activity will outperform the market before we abandon the market in favor of the government.”

I don't see how this isn't the broad outlines of the American economic consensus. You have to go pretty far to the left, way to the right, or get into radical populism before you find resistance to this general idea.

So at this point you're debating about what parameters in general should be used to determine when to bring in the blunt tool of government policy, or what problems of the day merit it. You're not disagreeing with the liberal on bright-line principle. Which gets at a critique I have of libertarians – when they disagree with something, they tend to jump to thinking there's a bright-line principle at stake rather than shades of difference one can compromise on and form coalitions around. This severely limits the reach of the libertarian approach, in my view. Or maybe everyone has that problem and I just feel like libertarians ought to be held to a higher standard.

You seem to be however a rational person, or at least someone who is capable of taking care of yourself. Do you think you should have the option of opting out of Social Security or other government “safety nets?”

Thats my biggest issue with government. People do not have the choice of being more personally responsible for their own well-being. This is an option I would like to have.

I have visited several western european countries. The plumbing in the U.S. has better water pressure and more people per capita have iPods.