As always, Ann makes some great points. And I am one libertarian who I hope she would find likable and not entirely crazy. But she needs to be careful where she goes with this. Governments do settle disputes over things like disposition of estates upon death and adoption issues and so forth. However, there are innumerable unusual situations that do not involve marriage, such as an unrelated caretaker, a single person adopting, orphans, the unwed sperm donor's right to prevent the unwed egg donor from having an abortion, child custody out of wedlock, etc. There is no marriage in place to provide a framework for decisions and judges must use judgment... I know, always a risky proposition. But I believe Ann stands against gay...

I don't know who would factor it in, but is is a key contributing factor. There are others. What state has to pass laws to prevent red-shirting of middle school kids? (Answer: Texas) Texas has many counties with multiple school districts and many high schools with football stadiums that rival many colleges. Those things are a waste of the money that goes to public education. Texas passed a law to drug test students for steroid use and out of the thousands of tests (which aren't free) found fewer kids testing positive than a baseball team has players. It is pretty obvious if somebody is taking steroids. What is the point of randomly testing students who show NONE of the characteristics or symptoms of steroid use. And who cares...

Does that account for the inherent moral hazard? If I wear seatbelts, I may take more driving risks. If I believe that modern drugs can help me overcome certain vices like overeating, smoking, etc, I might be more willing to indulge.

...and that explains the difference in doing what is good for the party and what is good for the country. None of us have acrystal ball and a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush.

Mark, You make a good point. Perhaps the answer is that roads should not be a public good. I'm not arguing for that, but I'm saying that if we paid an owner for the use of roads, rules could also be imposed on the use of roads by the owner. We already have other traffic laws. But there is only a tenuous relationship between taxes used to pay for roads and the people driving on them. Even public roads could be operated as toll roads, reminding us that driving is a privilege. Like stop signs and stop lights, helmet laws, speed limits and seat belt laws are not necessarily bad things. But there is evidence that there are unintended consequences of these "safety" laws such as an increase in risky behavior that negates the benefits...

If groups are organized by common interests, desires, and cultures, one would certainly expect some uniformity with in the group, but much greater differences between groups. It is why we cherish freedom of association. Why would we expect one group to be equal to another by any measure of outcome. I would only hope that group associations are 1) voluntary, and 2) based on common objectives or desires and not based purely on physical appearances. That said, there is certainly some reason based on history and common heritage or for other reasons for people to associate based on skin color, eyes, height, hair color, or whatever. They may be racial characteristics, or physical characteristics not specific to race, such as those with a...

There is no evidence or history of monopolies where the monopolists exists without government protection. That only buttresses WEW's point. If the government didn't make it possible for large companies to maintain a monopoly by protecting them from competition by new entrants to the market, there would be an abundance of mom & pop operations and small businesses holding large corporations in check. Many large businesses already benefit from economy of scale, but there are limits and they don't need further government protection that inhibits competition.

I suspect more conservatives than you imagine, and certainly most libertarians do not believe that pouring trillions of dollars into stupid and unnecessary wars is fine and dandy. However, the purpose of government is to protect citizens from theft and assault and that includes assault by terrorists. An anarchist libertarian would say that each of us should be free to pay for the level of protection we individually desire and can afford. But conservatism and libertarianism and free market economists... all those groups that are anathema to liberals, have a place in their worldview for the concept of voluntary mutual aid groups whether they are for fire protection, healthcare, or a system of government that protects individual rights....

Correct on both points. There is a place for government. I don't think WEW contests that. But the government's purpose should be more about protecting individual property rights than about usurping them. So the government should prevent and punish takings by one citizen of the property of another rather than taking the property for itself. The dilemma is that government isn't free. So some level of taxation, preferably uniform and voluntary is necessary. When the government spends too much money, more than the tax base is willing to provide in voluntary taxes, then the government is more akin to a thief than a guardian. And while governments and societies don't have free will and morals per se, they are a reflection of the...

The point isn't for everybody to be equal in happiness and riches. Not only would it be unlikely, but everybody has a different opinion on what constitutes happiness and riches. The point is for everybody to have the opportunity to do what they want to do and succeed or fail on their own merits. Not only does that produce the greatest self esteem for each of us as individuals, but it results in the greatest overall wealth and variety and innovation for society at large.