Dear Starchild,
I disagree with Roderick's "Timetable libertarianism."
I prefer to advocate cutting welfare and taxes at the top, at the bottom, and in-between. Opposing a cut because it's in the wrong order throws an additional monkey wrench into our freedom message which has been monkeyed with far too much already.
Warm regards, Michael
Michael,
I believe the order in which cuts are made is important and makes a difference. For instance, I think it was a bad idea to deregulate savings and loans before eliminating FDIC insurance.
We can always *advocate* cutting everything at once, but when you get to the point of actually *writing* legislation, or proposing a ballot measure or what-not, something has to come first, at which point you are forced to prioritize. Do you think putting on a blindfold and throwing a dart at a list of government programs would be as smart a way to determine what to cut as comparing potential cuts and thinking about the likely practical results?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Along these lines, I think Harry Browne himself supported ending social security but honoring existing govt liabilities out of general taxes.
Dear Starchild,
I agree with you that deciding what legislation to actually write should not
be like throwing darts blindfolded.
I would advocate voting for any legislation that would clearly cut the size
and scope of Govt, whether it's from the "top down" or "bottom up." For
example, Rothbard advocated abolishing Govt borders only after welfare
programs are abolished. I understand his reasoning behind this sequence.
However, I would support opening borders first, should the legislation for
this appear first.
Warm regards, Michael