Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (371046)	6/30/2010 7:16:17 PM
From: alanrs	3 Recommendations Respond to of 794033

"Sounds silly, but in Stossel's view government has no role at all." I don't believe this is the case. In fact one of the things that keeps the Libertarian point of view interesting is trying to determine where the limits of 'limited government' are. Just as a thought experiment, lets say there was no federal government to protect our southern boarder. The citizens directly affected could take up arms and protect their property themselves. They can't do that now because there is a federal government that stops them from doing so. I don't see how being taxed to pay for a federal government that does not protect the boarder and stops those directly affected from doing so themselves is a better situation than no government at all. Just to not be misunderstood, I do not believe that no government at all is desirable, just that the current situation seems to be another case of the worst of all possibilities. ARS