
I'm afraid that I've lost the thread here.  I didn't suggest that all 
government regulations be subject to referenda.  So I don't follow the 
comments above.


I mean that an ideology that treats all government regulation as equally
undesirable and seeks to abolish all regulations is unlikely to draw
support among more than a miniscule portion of the electorate.

Furthermore, I am suggesting that such a plan is not feasible in an
industrial society because the weight of litigation and/or misery it
would produce would effectively crush productive effort.

No, I'm not surprised.  I just think it's interesting that on one hand
libertarians assume a limited government can be decreed, yet on the other
posit an entire government made up of people who carry guns.  (I realize
that many libertarians assume that such a government will be 
counterbalanced by a fully armed citizenry, but it is worth noting that
widespread civilian ownership of guns does not necessarily prevent the
establishment of totalitarian government, e.g. Iraq.)

Yup, sure do.  But since I also support the constitutional requirement
that the government provide for the general welfare (Article I section 8),
I'm willing to justify such programs on that basis.

Well, in the first place, I don't support a "socialized economic system."
I think within limits that capitalism is a fine idea.  But it is not
the case that "any third party...is...as likely to be ignorant or corrupt
as the buyer or seller."  There are multitudes of examples where such a
statement is demonstrably false.  Regulation of stock market transactions
that provide a reasonable basis for buyers to avoid fraud is only one
example.

jsh
