In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...
“A market economy is to economics what democracy is to government: a decent, if flawed, choice among many bad alternatives.” -- Charles Wheelan, "Naked Economics"
Comments
Yet so many Libertarians still refuse to attack Democrats. They'd rather aim their fire at fellow teammates in the Republican Party.
And you wonder why our limited government side never wins?
Opposition from those to whom you are opposed is not surprising.
Opposition (or betrayal) hurts worst when it comes from those you are close to.
Surely, you fellow travelers within Team R will come to your senses and support the Libertarian candidates for office, right?
The limited government side is the Libertarian side. Join us, we'll win.
;)
You're (as usual) missing the point
Which is a government that derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed does not need a police presence of absurd proportions and capabilities to protect itself from the citizens.