> Philosophers use evidence all the time in support of their arguments, especially when they are making empirical claims (as you are: you are claiming that the

> Philosophers use evidence all the time in support of their arguments, especially when they are making empirical claims (as you are: you are claiming that the costs of government outweigh the benefits when it comes to the provision of public goods). That's a moral not empirical claim. You can't measure what is morally better than what. Also that isn't my claim: I said nothing about what outweighs what, and I object to such arguments. You complain that I don't give a sympathetic reading to free rider problems -- without details, presumably simply because you disagree with me -- but then what do you do? You characterize my views grossly inaccurately by throwing in a bunch of your own assumptions. HN has terrible UI for finding new replies to comments like this, where they are nested under other comments I wrote, so I don't intend to check again. If you want to have a serious discussion and perhaps learn something, reply at: http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list?hl=en http://groups.google.com/group/rational-politics-list?hl=en