When we consider a certain government policy, there are two paths one could take in analysis: the philosophical path and the consequentialist path.  Now this simply means that when we hear of yet another potential law or regulation, or even reflect on old/current ones we naturally decide whether or not to support or oppose anything (perhaps not even laws) firstly by determining if it conforms to our moral/ethical/political philosophy.  Let’s examine the philosophy of libertarianism: no person, group, or government has any right or authority to initiate positive or negative force (refer to article named “What Is Force?”) against any individual.  Libertarianism also strongly upholds property rights, within the subject of property rights the principle of self ownership.  So now let’s use an example of a well known policy; the minimum-wage law.  Does imposing a price floor of labor and legally forcing employers to not hire any current or potential employee at a nominal wage below “X” amount, conform to the Non-agression principle, let alone the principle of property rights?  Of course not.  How about legal tender laws?  Is it wrong according to libertarian philosophy to force people not to use any commodity they so choose to make transactions other than the state-decreed currency?  Yes of course.  Comparing and contrasting government policies (or anything else) with libertarian philosophy is a great litmus test of the validity of these policies. The second test, as if it were even necessary is what I call the consequentialist approach.  In this test, one applies theory to estimate consequences of state actions, or can even more easily just step back and observe the results.  Let’s take my earlier examples; minimum-wage laws, and legal tender laws.  We know in theory the minimum-wage law is a price floor on labor, we also know through economic theory that price floors create surpluses, in this case surpluses of would-be employees who cannot find work.  To boil it down minimum-wage laws outlaw certain employment opportunities and thus create unemployment.  Legal tender laws eliminate almost all competition among banking institutions and thus among currencies as well, and grants government a monopoly on the creation and issuance of currency, which always leads to debasement of money, and of course spurs endless business cycles.  So what our philosophical gut instincts tell us is confirmed by the results. So how do you get through to the statist who rejects the non-aggression principle and property rights altogether, and really couldn’t care otherwise?  In my experience I’ve found that taking the consequentialist approach (at least at first to prove a point) is helpful in cracking the statist barrier, and here’s why.  Statists reject the principles of libertarian, hence the reason they are statists, but what can one possibly reply in defense of laws with such horrible results; results that are often the complete opposite of what was supposedly intended?  Not much at all.  Statism uses the age old excuse that government’s tactics are for the greater good, that the ends justify the means and that “you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette”.  Trying to chip away at this philosophy with another is almost always futile.  But pointing out indisputable evidence that the very results of a law or such that were so hungrily sought after, doesn’t match up in any way to what was intended, can be powerful.  Once people can understand that violating the human right (to live free of coercion) has undesirable consequences, then are the odds of turning the “statist” quo highest.