
		   [Patrick's example of anti-competitive regulations for
            auto dealers deleted.]

Let me try to drag this discussion back to the original issues.  As
I've noted before, I'm not necessarily disputing the benefits of 
eliminating anti-competitive legislation with regard to auto dealers,
barbers, etc.  One need not, however, swallow the entire libertarian
agenda to accomplish this end.  Just because one grants the benefits of
allowing anyone who wishes to cut hair to sell his/her services without
regulation does not mean that the same unregulated barbers should be 
free to bleed people as a medical service without government intervention.  
(As some/many libertarians would argue.)  

On a case by case basis, the cost/benefit ratio of government regulation
is obviously worthwhile.  The libertarian agenda, however, does not call
for this assessment.  It assumes that the costs of regulation (of any
kind) always outweigh its benefits.  This approach avoids all sorts of 
difficult analysis, but it strikes many of the rest of us as dogmatic, 
to say the least.

I have no objection to an analysis of medical care, education, 
national defense or local police that suggests a "free market" can provide
a more effective, efficient means of accomplishing social objectives
than is provided through "statist" approaches.   With some notable
exceptions, however, I do not see such nitty-gritty, worthwhile 
analysis being carried out by self-professed libertarians.  

jsh