With no taxes, what about firestations and garbage service?

[Hawker]

...snip...
If the best argument for maintaining the status quo is simplicity at the cost of consumer choice; then well, I guess your pragmatism trumps our principle (*cough*).  However, that problem has long been solved.  It's called the 'free market' and it is that big grey animal in the middle of the room you keep ignoring.  You can't even argue that private fire protection has never been attempted, it has and does fine.  You just don't notice because it's successful.

What cities with a decent number of skyscrapers have optional fire service cover?  As in you can opt out of paying for it?

[DeathAndTaxes]

The logic assumes that the fire service can be provided cheaply and that each house has one owner.  And in rural areas, thats true. 

But in an urban area where buildings are higher and have multiple occupants, it simply won't work.  Even with a monopoly its hard to pay for a decent fire service with the kit to handle fire in a multi-story building.  And in an apartment block, if 1 person out of the 100 or so apartments has paid for the fire service, the other 99 get their fires put out for free as you can't save just one part of one floor of a building. 

So you'd end up with 1 or 2% of people paying for the service.  A firetruck with a pumper that can be used for an apartment block will cost about $400,000.  Almost all fires require two pumpers.  So that 1 or 2% need to find huge amounts of money. 

It won't happen.  You need to make it compulsory for all people in the block just to make the system available to even one person in the block.

Simple private market solution.  Mortgage holders currently require homeowners insurance.  Homeowners insurance likely will put in a clause nullifying fire losses without a fire contract.  Mortgage company will foreclose for default of mortgage OR MORE LIKELY purchase fire insurance tack on penalty and charge mortagee.

Given that roughly 70% of homes have some mortgage on them 70% of households would have fire protection.  My understanding in areas that have private fire protection the number is actually higher than that.   How many people cancel their homeowners insurance after they pay off their mortgage.  Yeah some idiots do (and you see them on the news crying they lost everything) but most don't.  Fire protection would likely be similar. 

Hell I bet many homeowners insurance companies would simply wholesale drop people if they don't have adequate fireprotection.


Very few things NEED to be socialized; military is one.

[Hawker]

The logic assumes that the fire service can be provided cheaply and that each house has one owner.  And in rural areas, thats true. 

But in an urban area where buildings are higher and have multiple occupants, it simply won't work.  Even with a monopoly its hard to pay for a decent fire service with the kit to handle fire in a multi-story building.  And in an apartment block, if 1 person out of the 100 or so apartments has paid for the fire service, the other 99 get their fires put out for free as you can't save just one part of one floor of a building. 

So you'd end up with 1 or 2% of people paying for the service.  A firetruck with a pumper that can be used for an apartment block will cost about $400,000.  Almost all fires require two pumpers.  So that 1 or 2% need to find huge amounts of money. 

It won't happen.  You need to make it compulsory for all people in the block just to make the system available to even one person in the block.

Simple private market solution.  Mortgage holders currently require homeowners insurance.  Homeowners insurance likely will put in a clause nullifying fire losses without a fire contract.  Mortgage company will foreclose for default of mortgage OR MORE LIKELY purchase fire insurance tack on penalty and charge mortagee.

Given that roughly 70% of homes have some mortgage on them 70% of households would have fire protection.  My understanding in areas that have private fire protection the number is actually higher than that.   How many people cancel their homeowners insurance after they pay off their mortgage.  Yeah some idiots do (and you see them on the news crying they lost everything) but most don't.  Fire protection would likely be similar. 

Hell I bet many homeowners insurance companies would simply wholesale drop people if they don't have adequate fireprotection.


Very few things NEED to be socialized; military is one.

If the fire service can be provided with 90% of people paying and if there is only 1 provider that will work. 

If 100% participation is required due to the city size, then it needs to be compulsory insurance.

If there are 2 or more providers but there is not enough revenue to provide 2 trucks with pumpers for each service, then a local monopoly will be needed.

But in the ideal case, I can see that idea working just fine.  As moonshadow said, the 10% can be forced to pay after they have a fire.

[MoonShadow]

As moonshadow said, the 10% can be forced to pay after they have a fire.

I didn't make that argument.  I said that the guy who tries to get by cheap without any protection and his house burns down (and his homeowners' insurance policy drops him because he is an idiot, what kind of guy would keep his homeowners and not his fire protection anyway?) would serve as a warning to others in the area to the great risk that they would be taking by cutting liabilites in this area.

[Anonymous]

The logic assumes that the fire service can be provided cheaply and that each house has one owner.  And in rural areas, thats true. 

But in an urban area where buildings are higher and have multiple occupants, it simply won't work.  Even with a monopoly its hard to pay for a decent fire service with the kit to handle fire in a multi-story building.  And in an apartment block, if 1 person out of the 100 or so apartments has paid for the fire service, the other 99 get their fires put out for free as you can't save just one part of one floor of a building. 

So you'd end up with 1 or 2% of people paying for the service.  A firetruck with a pumper that can be used for an apartment block will cost about $400,000.  Almost all fires require two pumpers.  So that 1 or 2% need to find huge amounts of money. 

It won't happen.  You need to make it compulsory for all people in the block just to make the system available to even one person in the block.

Simple private market solution.  Mortgage holders currently require homeowners insurance.  Homeowners insurance likely will put in a clause nullifying fire losses without a fire contract.  Mortgage company will foreclose for default of mortgage OR MORE LIKELY purchase fire insurance tack on penalty and charge mortagee.

Given that roughly 70% of homes have some mortgage on them 70% of households would have fire protection.  My understanding in areas that have private fire protection the number is actually higher than that.   How many people cancel their homeowners insurance after they pay off their mortgage.  Yeah some idiots do (and you see them on the news crying they lost everything) but most don't.  Fire protection would likely be similar. 

Hell I bet many homeowners insurance companies would simply wholesale drop people if they don't have adequate fireprotection.


Very few things NEED to be socialized; military is one.

No, if military was a decentralized service provided solely by the voluntary desires of the people, the world be a much more peaceful place.

Socialized military just promotes an unaccountable monopoly on force which is our problem in the first place.

[DeathAndTaxes]

No, if military was a decentralized service provided solely by the voluntary desires of the people, the world be a much more peaceful place.
Socialized military just promotes an unaccountable monopoly on force which is our problem in the first place.

Meh.  Having actually served the level of sophistication of modern weapon systems is not handled by decentralized militiamen.  Any such army would be swept aside.  It takes literrally a lifetime to become an expect in a field and some casual volenteers would by completely outmatched by trained soldiers. 

Of course that doesn't even deal with systems like nuclear weapons ICBM, ballistic submarines, etc which are simply not decentralizable.   Our military should simply be much much much much smaller.  Like 1/20th of current size but composed of lifelong veterans and using the latest technological advancements. 

Of course I have a feeling you will call me a socialist for being a realist but we will just have to agree to disagree.

[NghtRppr]

Meh.  Having actually served the level of sophistication of modern weapon systems is not handled by decentralized militiamen.  Any such army would be swept aside.  It takes literrally a lifetime to become an expect in a field and some casual volenteers would by completely outmatched by trained soldiers.

Nobody said anything about casual volunteers. We're talking about private military forces.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Meh.  Having actually served the level of sophistication of modern weapon systems is not handled by decentralized militiamen.  Any such army would be swept aside.  It takes literrally a lifetime to become an expect in a field and some casual volenteers would by completely outmatched by trained soldiers.

Nobody said anything about casual volunteers. We're talking about private military forces.

Oh sweet love of God.  I worked w/ Blackwater in Iraq.  I trusted them less than I did the Iraqis.  Hell a bunch of them should be shot in the head for what they did over there (I am not talking about crimes against humanity I am talking about treason against the United States).  If Blackwater had access to nuclear weapons they likely would be sold to our enemies right now.    Lets not even get started on the fraud, waste, and abuse involved in these for profit companies in Iraq. 

Fuck to the no.  The Constitution doesn't say anything about handing keys to the kingdom over to private fucking armies. Yeah I know the Constitution is old and quaint but despite how often it is abused some of us still believe in it.  Private armies are an enemy of the Constitution and should be dealt with harshly.  I hope I am dead before this country gets royally fucked by the concept of privatized defense because it will be the final nail in the coffin of our grand experiment.  Time to rip of the Constitution and start over. 

The free market is great for a lot of thing, probably almost all things but when people try to make it do everything it is like a square peg into a round hole.

[MoonShadow]

http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2306265&spid=

At least this city has found a way to undercut the market rate for fire protection services, they are doing the same thing that the Roman Empire did, they use slaves!

[NghtRppr]

I worked w/ Blackwater in Iraq.

You're talking about government contractors, not a free market army. Blackwater is yet another example of our government being incompetent at regulating private businesses.

Yeah I know the Constitution is old and quaint but despite how often it is abused some of us still believe in it.

Good then. Bind yourself to it. I'll pass.

The free market is great for a lot of thing, probably almost all things but when people try to make it do everything it is like a square peg into a round hole.

That's probably because you don't understand what a free market is. A government regulated market is exactly not that.

[MoonShadow]

The Constitution doesn't say anything about handing keys to the kingdom over to private fucking armies.

Actually, it does.  Private merc contracts were called "Letters of Marque" in the day, and that exact language is used in the Constitution.

 Yeah I know the Constitution is old and quaint but despite how often it is abused some of us still believe in it.  Private armies are an enemy of the Constitution and should be dealt with harshly.

Actually, the opposite is true.  Thomas Jefferson, among others, regarded standing armies as a continous threat to the republic.  Militias were, and are, privately organized military units by definition, whose membership do not answer to any direct chain of command.  The US Army and Marine Corps are not, in point of fact, continously commissioned institutions from their founding dates.  Both were dispanded for a few years following the Revolution, in part, because the Articles of Confederation did not provide any collective funding for a national military.  We didn't even have a Navy, in the modern sense anyway.  John Paul Jones is credited with being the first Naval commander during the Revolution, but at the time he was more like a merc in the modern context.

 I hope I am dead before this country gets royally (censored) by the concept of privatized defense because it will be the final nail in the coffin of our grand experiment.  Time to rip of the Constitution and start over.  

Sorry, but as I have already noted, mercs have been a part of the US defense forces since the beginning.  You were born (censored).

The free market is great for a lot of thing, probably almost all things but when people try to make it do everything it is like a square peg into a round hole.

This is a valid argument, but the debate between private and public defense forces is a question of stragedies that the POTUS has always had the constitutional right to decide.  The fact that almost all of them has strongly favored a professional & government 'regulated' military does not alter that fact.

BTW, please watch your language.

[MoonShadow]

No, if military was a decentralized service provided solely by the voluntary desires of the people, the world be a much more peaceful place.
Socialized military just promotes an unaccountable monopoly on force which is our problem in the first place.

Meh.  Having actually served the level of sophistication of modern weapon systems is not handled by decentralized militiamen.  Any such army would be swept aside.  It takes literrally a lifetime to become an expect in a field and some casual volenteers would by completely outmatched by trained soldiers. 

I disagree.  The modern weapons systems are geared towards the destruction of other capital weapons of war, and thus other nation-states.  They serve little tactial value against groups of motivated militiamen who have little or no loyalty to any particular nation-state, lines on a map or strategic plot of land.  Afganistan, holding the well-earned reputation of being the place where empires invade to die, should be a case in point.  There have been almost as many US military personelle in that country as there are armed adult males of the local civilian population, and we still can't get a handle on the situation.  Such modern weapons systems would hold nearly zero tactical value for a privately defended city-state, except perhaps for the deterent effect of WMD's

Of course that doesn't even deal with systems like nuclear weapons ICBM, ballistic submarines, etc which are simply not decentralizable.   Our military should simply be much much much much smaller.  Like 1/20th of current size but composed of lifelong veterans and using the latest technological advancements. 

Would that be a bad thing?

[DeathAndTaxes]

I disagree.  The modern weapons systems are geared towards the destruction of other capital weapons of war, and thus other nation-states.  They serve little tactial value against groups of motivated militiamen who have little or no loyalty to any particular nation-state, lines on a map or strategic plot of land.  Afganistan, holding the well-earned reputation of being the place where empires invade to die, should be a case in point.  There have been almost as many US military personelle in that country as there are armed adult males of the local civilian population, and we still can't get a handle on the situation.  Such modern weapons systems would hold nearly zero tactical value for a privately defended city-state, except perhaps for the deterent effect of WMD's

Modern weapons are also quite effective at extermination too.  We haven't "won" in Afghanistan because we have a mandate to limit civilian deaths.  If the goal is too simply occupy and anhilate the populace the war could be won much easier.  Tactical nuclear weapons against cities, killing field, exterminating the populace by the millions w/ chemical weapons, search and destroy.  Essentially kill every single human who isn't "us".  No worrying about "enemy" if they aren't us then they should be dead.  Then occupy the land for its natural resources and geo-strategic value.

Israel could end the Palistinian conflict overnight if they were willing to commit wholesale genocide.  Not saying they should but pretending modern weapons aren't effective at extermination just because they aren't used for that is silly.  Palistinians have militias, they have small arms and if Israel one day decided to exterminate them there is absolutely nothing they could do to slow them down.  Hell their airforce could exterminate 90%+ of the populace with minimal risk from the air.

Such modern weapons systems would hold nearly zero tactical value for a privately defended city-state, except perhaps for the deterent effect of WMD's

Exactly and what if some future adversaries goal is to simply exterminate you and take your land.  Privitive weapon systems and militias would be no match for precision high yield weaponry and an adversary willing to just wipe you out.  Not just soldiers but you, your wife, your kids, everyone.

The Japanese tried this in WWII.  The occupation of mainland China for to secure space for future expansion of Japanese citizenry, part of a expanded Imperial Empire.  Only one problem; there were Chinese there.  Over the course of the war Imperial troops exterminated Chinese civilians by the tens of millions.  It wasn't considered a moral problem because the Japanese (as much as they would like to whitewash history) considered the Chinese sub-human.  Now they exterminated at least 20 million Chinese civilians and that was with circa 1940s weaponry.  Imperial troops didn't keep very good records (unlike the Nazi) so some historians believe it may be as many as 35 million Chinese citizens exterminated.  Had the Japanese possessed modern weaponry, extensive biological/chemical agents or tactical nuclear devices there may not be much of a Chinese race left today.

In a world of growing scarce natural resources the United States is a huge prize.  Thousands upon thousands of arce of high yield famland, bllions of gallons of fresh water, largest coal deposits on the planet, uranium, steel, aluminum, high tech industries, etc.

The idea that some future war will only involve force on force is naive.  What IF the goal of the enemy is simply to exterminate you in order to take your land, water, natural resources and ensure the survival of their citizens.  Many times in human history humans have been capable of considering the "other" to be subhuman and justify extermination.  It could (likely won't but could) happen again.

Are you willing to gamble not just your life but all future generation that won't happen and that primitve outdated militias will be able to withstand an enemy force willing to exterminate you for their own survival.  Not a war of conquest but a war of survival.  Do you want the underhand in that war?

Would that be a bad thing?

Not sure what you are asking.  I am state our military should be much much smaller.  It would make foreign wars of conquest far more difficult to achieve.  I don't believe we should abandon high tech weaponry though, resort to poorly equipped militias, or privatize our national defense.

[FirstAscent]

At first there will be several companies competing each other, but eventually they will be merged/bought by super captalists and then capital will take over the operation, finally end up in the bank's control

And, if the banks did not do a good job, you have no other choice

For garbage service, I saw one guy who had his own garbage company. He bought a truck that could hold 6 garbage cans in the back. He would go out in the morning, pick up the full garbage can and drop off an empty. Then go drop the garbage off at the dump.

Even if he only did 6 houses per day, that is 180 houses a month times $10 each per month...$1,800 per month income just for owning a truck and making a garbage run every day. $2,600 per month if he makes two trips a day.

A corporation could buy him out. Then the next guy would go out and buy a truck and do the same thing...

One of the reasons companies take over other businesses is that you get an economy of scale that prevents newcomers.  So in your scenario, unless the company can get an economy of scale to drop the price to a point that prevents newcomers, they won't do a takeover.

His scenario isn't realistic. Most houses have two trash cans (sometimes three, if separating yard waste, recyclables and general trash). Also, homeowners expect weekly pick ups, not monthly. Assume two cans per household, weekly pickups, and you get 30 dump trips a week with a truck that has a capacity of six cans, which is six dump trips per day. Dumps charge a dumping fee (that's six fees per day), and fuel costs (at $4 a gallon) would not cut it. Furthermore, there is registration, commercial insurance, vehicle depreciation, tires, brakes, and repairs. At the very least, an upgrade to a twelve foot stakebed truck would allow 30 cans per load (double stacked) and operation of said truck would cost about $75 to $150 a day to operate, depending on mileage. Note that this does not include dump fees.

Anybody would do an audit, and realize economies of scale are necessary, hence the use of 60,000 pound GVW garbage compaction trucks.

[MoonShadow]

Modern weapons are also quite effective at extermination too. 

I can't argue against that point.  Still doesn't explain how our world is better off with huge nation-state militaries versus locally funded and concerned militias.

The idea that some future war will only involve force on force is naive. 

Sure, but I didn't claim that future was will only involve force on force.  I simply stated that is the primary design of those pricey weapons systems.  If they don't have such targets, then they don't justify their pricetags. 

 What IF the goal of the enemy is simply to exterminate you in order to take your land, water, natural resources and ensure the survival of their citizens.  Many times in human history humans have been capable of considering the "other" to be subhuman and justify extermination.  It could (likely won't but could) happen again.

Are you willing to gamble not just your life but all future generation that won't happen and that primitve outdated militias will be able to withstand an enemy force willing to exterminate you for their own survival. 

Yes.  I am, as a point in fact, willing to take the risk that free men will be unwilling to contribute to a collective defense if the alternative choice is that I must trust that commanders of nation-state, taxpayer funded militaries will continue to not simply take over by coup.  Must I point out the historical fact is that during the course of the last century, more people were killed (unnaturally) by the agents of their own governments than by all other (unnatural) causes?

Would that be a bad thing?

Not sure what you are asking.  I am state our military should be much much smaller.  It would make foreign wars of conquest far more difficult to achieve.  I don't believe we should abandon high tech weaponry though, resort to poorly equipped militias, or privatize our national defense.

If you believe that real militias in America are, generally speaking, either poorly equipt or poorly trained you are sorely mistaken.  Sure, they don't have predator drones (yet, look at diydrones.com) but if you were to compare the self-funded gear of a real militia unit versus the "made by the lowest bidder" gear of a comparable light infantry unit of the US Army, the militia is likely to have both better quality gear and a more diverse set of gear, because they bought it themselves and many can afford much more than is ever issued to a infantryman.  As for training, at least half of real militias are comprised of military veterans.  The public image of such things is not reality, the militia units that actually exist are well organized and disciplined; and not remotely similar to the crazy survivalist/white supremist/Neo-Nazi BS that pervades the entertainment industry.

[Hawker]

Modern weapons are also quite effective at extermination too.  

I can't argue against that point.  Still doesn't explain how our world is better off with huge nation-state militaries versus locally funded and concerned militias.

Small local militias will disappear when in combat with proper armies backed by foreign states.  So if you don't have a nation state military with control over the territory of your nation state, your terroty becomes a warfield.  Each battle will reduce the number of militias by at least one and eventually only one military force will be left.  You can call that remaining force the government as they own you.

[Gabi]

hint: natural monopolies such as water, power and gas are generally better run by the government since they're marginally more accountable than a corporation doing it (see: turned out the 6 largest british gas providers were in collusion with eachother to put up gas prices by 30% for the sake of earning more money).

As for fire services and suchlike I'd rather have the government running the fire service as a non-profit than have a company using it to get all the money they can. It's that sorta attitude that leads to a load of firemen standing outside your house going "awfully flammable building this. could go up like a bonfire with just one dropped cigerette butt, know what I'm saying?"

I totally quote you.

[FredericBastiat]

Small local militias will disappear when in combat with proper armies backed by foreign states.  So if you don't have a nation state military with control over the territory of your nation state, your terroty becomes a warfield.  Each battle will reduce the number of militias by at least one and eventually only one military force will be left.  You can call that remaining force the government as they own you.

While I don't like a monopoly on force, I kind of see your point. Nation-states would probably collectively force their citizens to contribute to WMDs and other similar mass extinction superiorly efficient (one to many) types of weapons. They, in fact, already do this of course.

Would a society of libertarians be cooperative enough to work together and match in a tit-for-tat, a struggle for mutually assured destruction game-play that other nation-states engage in?

The real question is: would libertarian societies be able to survive in a sea of collective-force nation-states using competitive enforcement agencies, if their lands were significantly rich enough in resources (a worthwhile target)? Or would a libertarian society be able to match force for force, weapon for weapon, combine militias and armies in a united manner to effectively defend against a nation-state's invading army all without violating their charter?

[MoonShadow]

Modern weapons are also quite effective at extermination too.  

I can't argue against that point.  Still doesn't explain how our world is better off with huge nation-state militaries versus locally funded and concerned militias.

Small local militias will disappear when in combat with proper armies backed by foreign states.  So if you don't have a nation state military with control over the territory of your nation state, your terroty becomes a warfield.  Each battle will reduce the number of militias by at least one and eventually only one military force will be left.  You can call that remaining force the government as they own you.

That's your opinion.  I'm sure that we can both present historical examples of small local militias either running in abject fear or standing their ground, both before and after the US Revolutionary War.  Again, I've served.  I doubt that you have.  You speak as one who has book knowledge of the military, not direct experience.  And many, if not most, of the kind of person that considers himself a 'militiaman" is the same kind of person that volunteers for military service during an active national conflict.  My eight year old son has no irises, (acute bioccular anaridia, can't adjust to light at all, wears self-tinting eyeglasses to compensate) and can barely see his targets in full sun, but could thread an eye socket with his 22lr bolt action from across the backyard in moonlight.  It's entirely different when your targets are shooting back at you, though, and there is really no way to judge that until it were to occur.  No military plan of action ever survives contact with the enemy.

[Hawker]

Modern weapons are also quite effective at extermination too.  

I can't argue against that point.  Still doesn't explain how our world is better off with huge nation-state militaries versus locally funded and concerned militias.

Small local militias will disappear when in combat with proper armies backed by foreign states.  So if you don't have a nation state military with control over the territory of your nation state, your terroty becomes a warfield.  Each battle will reduce the number of militias by at least one and eventually only one military force will be left.  You can call that remaining force the government as they own you.

That's your opinion.  I'm sure that we can both present historical examples of small local militias either running in abject fear or standing their ground, both before and after the US Revolutionary War.  Again, I've served.  I doubt that you have.  You speak as one who has book knowledge of the military, not direct experience.  And many, if not most, of the kind of person that considers himself a 'militiaman" is the same kind of person that volunteers for military service during an active national conflict.  My eight year old son has no irises, (acute bioccular anaridia, can't adjust to light at all, wears self-tinting eyeglasses to compensate) and can barely see his targets in full sun, but could thread an eye socket with his 22lr bolt action from across the backyard in moonlight.  It's entirely different when your targets are shooting back at you, though, and there is really no way to judge that until it were to occur.  No military plan of action ever survives contact with the enemy.

Logically, if there is a dispute that results in 2 militias fighting, the dispute ends when the battle is over and 1 militia is destroyed.

So there is only 1 militia left where there was 2.

If you have 200 militias in a society, that means that after a while, there will be just one left.  Of course there will be alliances, betrayals, etc but eventually, only one will prevail.