Ed Cone's article

Article by Ed Cone, in today's News and Record.

It raises a number of interesting questions.

Should libertarians advocate "libertopian" policies, as campaign platforms?

I think the answer is no, but reasonable people could certainly disagree.

Harry Browne used to say that the only real libertarian educational policy is the immediate elimination of all taxes. That may be true.

But I am an incrementalist. Any policy that improves choice, and puts more power and responsibility in the hands of the citizens should be supported. How much more choice? How much of a change should we press for? As much as we can get, politically.

I happen to think that a voucher program, one that is funded by the lottery, is our best bet. Keep current spending at its present level, and INCREASE spending with the voucher program.

It's true that government is still involved. I don't see any politically feasible alternative. If I'm wrong, and we can get more, let's go for it. But I expect that we will fall short even of a voucher program, or raising the ceiling on the number of charters.

I got a couple of emails about agreeing that the subsidy to the airline in Greensboro makes sense. Look: the airport in Greensboro is operated by a government authority. It is losing money, fast. First best: sell the airport! Get the government out of that business, let a private company run it if they can.

Not gonna happen, though. So....what? You have two choices: waste even more taxpayer funds on losses, or spend a little on subsidies to reduce the losses. Having the airline move in makes business sense. Having the government run the airport may NOT make business sense, but changing that is not on the table.

Why is this different from Google, or Goodyear? Both of those are private firms, and the government is NOT operating the business. All that is being bought is jobs. In the case of the airport, the government IS running the business. It has to act like a business, and give discounts to some customers.

I really appreciate the ink Ed spends on ballot access. We need to get those signatures, and then (a) get 2 %, and (b) change the law, so we never have to do that again!