And banking insurance

And medical insurance

And accident insurance

The problem isn’t so much the asking, as it is the unconrtollable urge of politicians to say “yes” whenever enough people ask them for something even though they KNOW they should say no.

That said, having given it a lot of thought, I’m of the mind that the difference between federalism and peaceful anarchy is largely 6 of one, half a dozen of the other — that is to say, the distinguishing feature of the two societies would be a technicality. The only question in my mind is the stability problem. What sand could we have thrown in the gears to prevent the atrocity that is our modern day federal government? On the other hand, anarchy is inherently difficult to coax into such a configuration, but for all we know it might not be feasible in the modern age.

So, although the path I take is a little different, I conclude in agreement with this post, and add that as we get closer and closer to a truly minimalist government, the degree to which we can rid ourselves of this necessary evil will become more obvious.

In this country, before the creation of the Federal Communications Commission, there were thousands of different phone companies, all competing with each other over various areas. AT&T was only the largest of these. It argued that the government needed to step in and solve the problem, and thereby secured its monopoly.

As we’ve seen in recent years with partial telecom deregulation, the problem, if you could call it that, was something that the market could easily have solved in the first place, had it been allowed to do so.