You say you're interested in Libertarians? You say you're interested in ezines? Check out this url (Libertarianism makes the big-time non-print media):

Even though his piece is history-cum-commentary hidden in a review, Jacob Weisberg makes enough interesting points, including his question for Charles Murray: What this scheme leaves unclear is why education and the environment are valid public goods while other efforts he opposes—insuring elderly people against poverty, say...

Yet, I find weak logic here: The "futility" thesis—government can't help—and the "perversity" thesis—government makes problems worse instead of better—are at odds. If government can't do anything, how can it do so strongly the opposite of what it intends? The easy answer is: Government can only make problems worse. Intention has nothing to do with it. Not that government can't help (maybe it could make good things better); but that government, involved in a problem, can only make that problem worse. (So much for easy attacks and easy answers... all empty: When do we get down to the real stuff?)

By the way, I think Weisberg hits one of the most important issues— but immediately glances off it—when he says: Dimly aware of this problem, Murray brings in a more sweeping illegitimacy thesis—government is unjustified—to trump all the others. Of course, I'm convinced that you can't justify government without bringing God in to it. The best that you can do is argue for (not truly justify) government on secular (but still) moral grounds. We're still running from moral discussion; but it's interesting to see how close you necessarily get when you think real thoughts about real things.

And I really like the information posted right at the top with the Author's name; and the leap to #Bio the reader's offered.

I'm tellin ya: state a the art. Whaddayathink?

Home | Quiz | Results | FAQ | Articles | Free Info | Software | Links | About | Quill | Libertarian.Org