Holey Mackerel! Mike took it to me for critiquing him over here. That's got to be good for my hit count, since, on average, about a hundred more people per day hit his site than mine.

His critique is too extensive to post over here. Go read it if you want to. I will reply, though.

Government larger than the size libertarians like Browne (and Mike?) advocate doesn't equal big government. I don't necessarily want our government as big as it is. Mainly, I want as much as possible moved to the local level.

We need to stop corporate welfare. I'm for smaller government in that regard.

People barely give to charity. More money is spent on pet care than all charitable giving combined. And I say people wouldn't give more to charity if they paid less in taxes. And you say they would. And I say 'My dad can beat up your dad', ad infinitum. It's a moot point (did you know most people misuse 'moot'?).

Over human history, governments have most often served as a tool of oppression than of protection, while limits on government have given us freedom, peace, and prosperity. When we wake up and strip our government of the powers outside those limits we set for it over 200 years ago, we will be a freer, happier, and more prosperous people.

I disagree with that statement. While governments are oppressive without exception, limits on government are often worse. Look at the turn of the 19th century. Does anyone want to go back there? Child labor, robber barons, horrible health. The more socialist governments of Canada and Western Europe seem a lot more humane to me than ours. And they have reasonable limits on things like CEO salaries.