At least we are now transitioning from a publically provided national defense force to private contracting, although we are still paying for it from collective funds. We ought to do away with that altogether. Many of the state governments at the time of the founding fathers preferred to keep their own militias rather than give them over to, or pay for, national defense. We might have to worry about Washington DC* being burned down again, but I think it would be better to hope that someone in our region has the means and desire to pay to defend themselves from hostile invaders, and we might fall under their umbrella of protection. Hey, modern feudalism! Cool. I could move to a small hut within a large protective fence around Bill Gates estate.
Minority groups are screwed at every level.
We can fix that. Been working on it for some time, now, and its taking a lot longer than we thought. Could use your help, if you’ve nothing better to do.
IANAnAnarchist, but…
By your own account, you make a(n allegedly very good) living identifying means whereby wealthy persons may evade paying taxes. You yourself produce nothing valuable to society; your clients may or may not be moved to invest their avoided-tax resources into businesses that benefit society (but probably are instead diverting them into offshore strategies that permanently remove wealth from America). As a consumer, you’ve made it clear that you indulge in luxuries and sneer at those who provide them.
That’s how. And it’s based on your own accounts of what you do for a living and what you buy and consume.
Interesting username/post combination! 
I was really hoping you had found a link for this one too.
But it’s not on fire. 
Jesus Marimba! A house made of asbestos! You don’t burn that down, you have it carefully disassembled by a haz-mat team!
Uh, what? Was that supposed to be an argument? You just recited your very erroneous perception of the facts and then said “QED.” That’s not an argument, pal.
I suspect that house would burn – though not the asbestos parts – because those asbestos panels are probably on a timber frame.
Wherefore the question? How does the statement “We have volunteer fire protection. It costs us ten dollars a year.” lead one to the question: “Your volunteer fire department is totally unregulated? Wow!”? since no reference was made to regulation whatsoever, let alone whether it is or isn’t. Could you guide me through the chain of logic that led you to your rather odd and unrelated question?
That’s ridiculous. You expect me to have to share a fire department with hundreds of other families in my neighborhood? I have an uncle whose house almost burnt to the ground while he sat on the fire department’s “waiting list” to have a fancy extinguishing procedure done. And why should the big rich chemical plants and fireworks factories have priority access to first rate fire protection? Or those old houses that are just going to burn to the ground anyway? I think we should ALL have equal access to first rate fire department resources.
How does the death panel fit into all of this? Does this means there’s a team of Super Villains who decide whose houses burn down?
Well, if your house is in fire you have to apply to have it put out. If you are old the government will figure you’ll likely be dead soon anyway and not need a house so putting out the fire is a waste of resources. Good chance if you apply to have it put out and are old the government will instead toss you into the burning building to move things along and get you off of Social Security thus saving even more government resources.
Here is what I’d like to know.
Go without food for more than a few weeks, and you’ll keel over and die. Everybody knows this. Yet we don’t seem to question the ability of most people to make their own arrangements when it comes to feeding themselves and their family, and we recognize the useful role of the market in providing for this. Indeed, most of us are aware of what can happen if this is interfered with - and little of this benefits consumers in any way. Most of it goes to corporations to keep them happy, and so we pay more for milk or sugar or the like.
The necessary place for food welfare programs won’t be discussed here, since they do not have market impacts nearly as great as ADM or Cargill pressing for various subsidies. But even with these in place, food is available for most people at decent prices and we can live to a ripe old age with little direct government intervention in our visits to Safeway.
Now, why do we accept that markets work well for food but assume they break down for health care? President Obama has skillfully portrayed opponents of his plan as supporters of the status quo. I do not support things as they are - frankly the level of government intervention of health care as it exists now is unsustainable, and insurance is unnecessarily complex, probably overcovers too many people and is pinned to employment and is not portable.
I am enrolled through my workplace in a plan that covers routine care and catastrophic care thoroughly. Out of pocket costs are capped and there is a medical savings account for routine expenses - this is funded partly through my employer and partly through pretax contributions. This took some getting used to, but it does work - you look for lower cost drugs and treatments so as to maximize your buying power. Because the insurance portion has a high deductible, premiums are very low.
In addition, I should note that truly free market areas of medicine (those that don’t deal with government or insurance reimbursement at all) are the best at lowering costs. Remember this the next time you hear a Lasik commercial - this procedure was once unavailable, then expensive, and now is cheap.
Because they already have?
Poor people in this country can still get food on government programs – a public option if you will. And we all know how that led to a complete government takeover of our eating processes.
Isn’t there a continuum? With the exception of a few anarchists out there, almost everyone agrees that there are some things the government should be paying for and providing. Likewise, there are some goods and services that almost everyone agrees the government shouldn’t provide. It’s possible to debate and disagree in good faith about where on that scale health care is. But I don’t think it does anybody any good to engage in rhetorical excesses. While the OP is a nice bit of satire, I don’t think it really moves the debate forward.
To the OP - yeah, none of this new-fangled socialist crap! Let get’s back to traditional ways of paying for fire fighting. Not to be crass[sup]*[/sup], but if this means there are market incentives for starting fires, so be it! Nice house you got there, it’d be a real shame if a fire started.
[sup]*[/sup] I slay me! Or, more historically, I crucify myself on the Appian Way, and leave the body to rot as an object lesson.
Best post in the thread. Especially as the discussion descends into arguments about food stamps and stuff like that.