From: marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young)
Subject: Fire Protection, Taxes, Weather (was Re: Taxation as Theft)
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 02:10:02 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

james@cs.UAlberta.CA (James Borynec; AGT Researcher) writes:
>marky@engin.umich.edu (Mark Anthony Young) writes:
>>Fire protection is easily provided by the free market system.  You
>>simply enroll in one of the Fire Protection companies that operate
>>in your area.  If your house catches fire, they'll come and put it
>>out.  If you pay for deluxe service, they'll come when your neighbour's
>>place catches fire and keep it from spreading to your place.  For
>>people who don't want to get fire protection, there'll be freelancers
>>around most places -- people who'll bring the trucks to your fire and
>>dicker with you over the price to put it out.
>
>A more common "free market" system would be for a freelance fire
>deptartment to offer to buy your (burning) house for say 10% of
>its real value.  Anti-trust laws, who need them :-)
>
I'd pay the department that let me keep my house, if ever I got into
that situation.  More likely, I'd be paying for deluxe fire protection.

The "dicker" method of fire protection has been used before -- in
ancient Rome, for one case.  I'm not aware of any society that's
implemented your idea.

>>Military is a bit more complicated, but can still be done.  I can 
>>afford to arm myself and some retainers enough to protect me from
>>small threats.  For larger threats I can band together with people 
>>across the country to buy more expensive equipment that will be
>>available to members of the corporation as required.
>
>>Our companies can then offer protection to individuals.  If a
>>foreign army enters your area, we'll come and get you out and pay
>>to set you back up again when the fighting's over (not great, but
>>better than death).  If 40% or more of your community signs up to
>>our protection plan, you get community rates.  We'll come out and
>>protect your whole community from the foreign invaders (tho' only
>>members get recompense for damages).  
>
>>Of course, some people would rely on their neighbours' protection 
>>to protect themselves; but then, under your welfare system, some 
>>people would rely on their neighbours' charity to keep the poor 
>>people from rioting.  All in all, my system for protecting people
>>is no worse than yours for feeding people, and my system has the
>>added benefit that no one has to give any money for _any_ service
>>they don't want.
>
>Until the 40% who DO pay for the military get mad at the 60% who
>don't.  

Ach, Jimbo.  Our company also offers affordable "tax protection"
policies.  We guarantee that, if you pay our premiums, you'll
never have to pay taxes :-).  We also won't deal with thieves,
so once your community starts levying taxes, we'll void the
contract.
>
>You are missing a DISPUTE settlement mechanism.  Who pays for that?
>Is that theft?  Is it a violation of your property rights?
>
I believe Acme offers a dispute settling mechanism -- fixed rate
for small cases, percentage for larger cases.  Many companies are
signed on on a contingency basis, and I recommend you stick with
them, since then you don't have to worry about your company
refusing to arbitrate with you.  Of course, the non-authorized
companies are a bit cheaper, but you can think of it as
insurance....

>j.b.
>PS.  Arguing about taxes is like complaining about the weather.
>Everyone does it, but it does precious little good.

Ah, but it greases the social wheel, doncha know.

...mark young

PS.  Speaking of the weather, what's it like there?  It's damp
and grey here, no snow at all.  Winter in Ottawa was so much
better, in spite of the excess cold....
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada