[wbarmy]

I agree in Spirit, but have always assumed that “maximizing personal liberty” and “shrinking the government's budget” are mutually connected and result in exactly the same thing. If I have less government spending, I automatically have more personal liberty. If I choose to use that personal liberty to attend the church of my choice, or help the poor, or build houses for the destitute, that is my choice. Most of the philanthropists of bygone eras did not build (libraries, hospitals, etc) for the poor, but as monuments to themselves. But the poor still used them.

[ClearCase_guy]

Definitely connected and definitely heading toward the same place.

But I think drug legalization makes the order clear -- If you legalize first, society is likely to see an enormous burden of people using social services. That expands the budget (not what we want). On the other hand, if you remove the taxpayer funded social services first, then legalize the drugs, there will be no reason for the budget to expand as a consequence.

When possible, move in parallel, when one part needs to go first, make it the "shrink the government" part rather than the "expand my liberties" part.