[goldstategop]

In an ideal world, you would be right. The point is not everything government does is bad. For neocons, unlike for liberals, the bottom line with government is whether a particular program delivers results. If it doesn't, it must be reformed or eliminated. Good intentions aren't enough to justify the continuation of something that doesn't work as it should.

[TopQuark]

In an ideal world, you would be right. I agree, but the world does not need to be ideal: it was this way for thousands of years.

Not all changes are progress. In this area we should advocate not the government's continues intervention into this are of life but stregthening of OTHER institutions 000 such as family and religion.

The point is not everything government does is bad. I agree with that too.

Private enterprise and markets underprovide public goods, such as defense, public roads, clear air, etc. That is what the government needs to do.

Kindness to parents and of any other kind, although critical for the health of the culture is not a public good. Noweher does the Jewish Torah or Christian bible speak of groups, but rather along the lines of "you shall take care of the widow and the orphan in your midst" --- always in singular. It were Marxists that moved this area of life into public goods.

And, incidentally, when the government provides private goods, it NEVER does it well:

For neocons, unlike for liberals, the bottom line with government is whether a particular program delivers results. It's not the question of effectiveness (whether it delivers) but of efficiency (at what cost). The government is notoriously inefficient.