Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Strange Bedfellows: and a new to
Message-ID: <28200343@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Nov-85 22:30:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200343
Posted: Thu Nov 28 22:30:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Dec-85 20:48:16 EST
References: <579@calgary.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:calgary:-57900:inmet:28200343:000:864
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Nov 28 22:30:00 1985


[radford@calgary]
>But is it really necessary to argue about whether the  last  ves-
>tiges  of  conventional  government  can  be eliminated, when the
>present government is at least an order of magnitude larger  than
>a "minimal state"?

>So I propose an incremental approach.

Hear, hear, HEAR !

Shoe quotas are a good subject except I know  less  than  nothing
(is  that  an exaggeration ? I mean, exaggeration means more, not
less...) about them.

Why not also consider deregulations actually made in the  past  -
did any of them fail ? Not the ones I remember off-hand: Prohibi-
tion, Corn Laws, NEP in USSR. The French  Revolution  swept  away
*oodles* of regulations (added a few, too, like bread price ceil-
ings).  This might be a good challenge for statists. And if  they
come up with a good one, the ball will be in the other court.

		Jan Wasilewsky