Screen storm takes over the laptop!

Just so you know, I think the screen on my laptop is shorting out.

It has a dark area in the lower right-hand corner, and the back of the screen at that spot is rather hot. The dark area has a shadow that is spreading upwards from there. The right third of the screen flashes, and the whole screen image jumps and skips. Yay.

Makes it a bit hard to read and concentrate. I'm hopeful I'll find a solution soon. Before the thing bursts into flames.

.

No more "driver's licenses" for "illegals"?

One of the local-ish papers had an article about New Mexico lawgivers contemplating an end to the practice of issuing "driver's licenses" to "illegal immigrants".

I posted the following comment:

I am fully in favor of ending the practice of issuing "driver's licenses" to independent migrants ("illegal immigrants"). And everyone else.

Driving is a right; not a privilege as The State tries to dishonestly make everyone believe. This is because there is a basic human right to travel without molestation, and this necessarily includes, in the modern world, the right to drive.

Do you believe George Washington or Thomas Jefferson would have tolerated some bureaucrat ordering him to carry a "rider's license" to ride his horse, or to hang a "license plate" on his horse's tail, for that matter? Of course not! And how do you think either of them would have responded if some representative of the king (or any other tyrant) stopped him along the way and tried to steal from him (issue a "fine") or kidnap ("arrest") him for not complying with these unconscionable edicts? Ponder that for a moment.

.

The UnState Project

OK, so this isn't a "real" project. Yet. Or it probably isn't by most people's definition of "real". Or "project".

I do like the idea of The Free State Project and Free State Wyoming, but I have a problem reconciling "free" and "state". They seem so mutually-exclusive.

The closest I can get to reconciling those ideas is to see a "free state" as an area, not with borders of its own, but surrounded by borders of the non-free States around it. Kind of like a donut hole or a spandrel, its boundaries would be the result of what surrounds it, not of its own idea of where it ends. If a State adjacent to it disbanded, the area of the "free state" would automatically expand without anyone redrawing any maps or passing any resolutions.

In this case, the only way I can see any rationality in the term, the free territory would be more like an "unstate".

Of course, you don't need to wait for the pitiable folks who live around you to decide to join your project. You can become the catalyst for The UnState Project today, right where you sit. Withdraw consent. Don't pretend anyone else can represent you. Don't impose government on your neighbors, nor cooperate with those who would. Live liberty.

*

Copsuckers, Mobsters and You the Citizen by Kent McManigal

Copsuckers, Mobsters and You the Citizen by Kent McManigal

I was encouraged to write an article for Zero Gov, so here it is:

Recently, I have gotten very angry over cops. Very! Not just the cops themselves, but those who support (or even worship) cops. L. Neil Smith calls these starry-eyes fans “copsuckers”.

My first reaction to my own anger is “Why should I get mad? It’s a waste of energy to get mad over stupid people.” But then I remind myself that there are times when anger is the only reasonable response. Of course, I get mad. This is an outrage! Unconditional cop-loving is similar to saying it is OK to rape babies. Any decent person should get mad over such nonsense.

I understand why cop-lovers focus on individual cops when they try to make the case that cops are “regular people” who have families to support, and are nice neighbors and good relatives. It deflects attention from the real problem.

I am sure individual cops can be very nice to those they like. It is just the nature of the vast majority of humans. Pick any human monster or tyrant from history and I’d bet there were those who knew him personally and who would say he was a kind and loving person who was just misunderstood.

It isn’t how the cop treats people he knows in family situations or normal social situations that shows his character, but how he behaves when he is taking part in a check point, or when he sees a person with a gun on his hip walking down the street, or any time when he sees himself as the “authority”. That is when the true character shines through.

An individual mobster might never steal or murder- perhaps his mafia “job” is completely unrelated to those mob functions, maybe he’s just the accountant, but he is tainted simply by belonging to that organization. The same goes for a cop. He might never steal, kidnap, or murder, but by choosing to belong to the police department he is choosing to belong to a group that does all those things as a fundamental part of its daily existence. And no cop, not one, would keep his job more than a day if he refused to take part in, or was open with his opposition to stealing (“fines”), kidnapping (“arrest” for violating counterfeit “laws”), and often, murder (killing for reasons of “officer safety”) committed by his brother officers. A person who makes the choice to remain a part of such an organization is choosing to be a bad person by association even if he stays otherwise “clean”.

I can more easily forgive the old guys. They grew up in an era where the harm of The State was slightly better balanced by some good; good that would have been better provided by a voluntary system rather than a coercive system based upon theft, but still some little good. That is no longer the reality. But they are set in their ways and probably see things as they used to be rather than as they are. Those days are gone and will never return. The State can never again be excused, and young people just starting out and who choose to join this corrupt organization, are making the wrong choice. They are much harder to forgive.

I have a very hard time understanding why anyone would continue to support cops today. But then I remind myself that there is a characteristic that I don’t share with the cop-lovers: Cops are popular only because people have generally been trained to be helpless. A helpless adult is a pitiable thing.

But do even the helpless, pitiable citizens “need” cops? What happens if there are no cops to enforce “laws”? Do “laws” even need to be enforced?

The laws of the Universe- laws of physics- cannot be violated. (Unless you believe in the supernatural, in which case believing in The State is understandable.) These real laws need no enforcement or enforcers, and there ARE no enforcers, other than the laws themselves, to prevent you from going faster than light, or to prevent you from violating gravity for example. The laws of the Universe are self-enforcing.

Laws of ethics are almost self-enforcing, although they can be violated. Remove the blinders that make exceptions for acts of government agents and you know an act that is wrong when you see it. People usually act to stop an act that is wrong if they see it happen, unless they have been brainwashed into believing that is someone else’s responsibility. Few people would excuse me if they saw me beating a child in the street. Put a uniform on me and some people would assume the kid deserved it. That’s insane.

Then there are the false “laws” imposed by The State. “Laws” of The State utterly fail to be self-enforcing and so hordes of enforcers are sent forth to spend their time trying to catch and punish those who violate these nonsensical “laws” which are based upon nothing but the whims of The State.

This is what leads to all the abuses and tyranny. What gets me is that these verminous parasites operate openly all around us without shame and in safety.

Even these obvious things listed above aren’t what trigger my anger, though. No, it is the personal insults and lies.

Of all the verbal flatulence that rips from the mouths of cops and those who worship cops, the worst is that lie that they do what they do “for [my] own good”.

Don’t write tickets against other drivers for me, because it doesn’t help me; I don’t ask you to do it, and I know that traffic cops are the greatest danger to driver safety there is. People, including cops, can either drive well, or they can drive “legally”, but not both. Worrying about silly things like speed limits is a worse distraction than cell phones could ever be.

You do not enforce any “laws” for my own good. I can take care of myself and my family- at least from depredations of the freelance thieves and attackers. People will band together voluntarily and deal with those who commit actual wrongs. Enforcers are a greater danger to most people than freelance aggressors and thieves could ever be. Shooting freelance bad guys in self-defense is still generally acceptable; shooting midnight murder squad goons who happen to wear badges only brings an unending horde of their gang to finish the job of murdering you for daring to defend yourself or kidnapping you if you manage, against all odds, to survive the attack.

Then the cops try to create shame on my part by claiming to “put our life on the line for YOU.” What a filthy lie. If you are doing that, you are doing it without my permission. You need to immediately stop it and go away. You are not wanted and you are not needed. You don’t have my permission to do anything on my behalf. I did not ask for this “favor”. The price is too high.

The final insult is when they whine “Don’t you think that [sacrifice] would deem some type of respect?” of course not is my response, especially when I have asked you to go away.

If an intruder in your house is cleaning your toilet and you ask them to leave but they refuse, are they worthy of respect? If you try to kick them out and they (or their gang) kill you for rejecting their “help” are they heroes? Hardly. They are invaders and trespassers and thieves and murderers. Cops today are the worst threat to liberty; much more dangerous than any “terrorist”. They need to either change what they do and the way they do it, or they need to go away. If they don’t go away peacefully, they need to be eliminated forcefully, without initiating force, of course.

In this town, it may be dangerous to speak the truth about cops. The majority of people here are very “law and order”, even though they excuse their own illegal activities. I expect it is very possible that I will be targeted by the cops for speaking out against them. I may even be “set up”. It will only prove my point if that happens.

PS: Now go to the link and read the comments.

(Also, look at the reaction from the bad guys here.)

.

Society can't be victim of crime

Society can't be victim of crime

(Originally published on 5-6-2011. As written, not as published.)

Often when the impact of increasing liberty is being discussed, especially with regard to things some people resist on moral grounds (such as ending the criminalization of prostitution, ending drug prohibition, ending the regulation of gambling, etc.), someone will claim that victimless crimes actually have a victim, and that victim is "society". So let's examine this assertion bit by bit.

What is a victim and what is society? A victim is someone who has been harmed against their will. An individual is harmed when they suffer actual physical or financial damage. Anything that doesn't harm any individual harms no one- by definition. Can society be harmed by an action that harms no specific individual? Let's see.

Merriam-Webster says "society" is "a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests". Society has no physical form so it can't be physically damaged; just like bullets wouldn't kill a ghost. No victimless crime harms society economically, since all money really belongs only to individuals. Unless there is fraud or theft involved, which financially harms an individual, there is only mutually-beneficial trade, even if some find it distasteful. The only way I see to really harm a group, beyond harming the individual members, is to cause the group to disband, perhaps to reform in a different way. But is that truly "harm"?

I don't think society can be harmed, but merely changed or altered. Of course, if you prefer the way society is now rather than how it might be after it has been changed, your opinion is that society has been harmed. This is just a matter of perspective; some individual would see just about any particular imaginable change as an improvement while someone could be found to resist any particular change. As long as people are allowed to opt out and no one is coerced into going along and paying for programs or policies they don't like, no one is harmed by the change.

This explains why The State's very existence causes change to be seen as harm since no one is allowed to opt out of the coercively-enforced majority rule. As one graphic example: without an institution claiming legitimacy- a "government"- and a system of coercion in place to be coopted to force you to obey Sharia Law, and forbid you from acting in self defense against those who want to force it upon you, how could it actually harm you?

Finally, some claim that society is a victim since "society" will have to pay for the harm some people do to themselves and to other individuals by their actions. This is a refutation of the socialism inherent in taxation and welfare rather than proof society is a victim. If anything in this example victimizes society it is taxation, collectivism, and welfare. End them and let people pay for their own care and pay restitution for any harm they cause others and the excuse evaporates.

What's good for the goose...

I'm sure you have noticed that The State doesn't obey the laws that supposedly bind it. It no longer even pretends to obey.

To be fair I must admit I take the "laws" the government imposes on me about as seriously as the government takes the laws that apply to its actions.

*

Internet wakes up

The following is a little bit of fiction for your entertainment. But it might not always remain fiction.

*

The end of The State shouldn't have surprised us, I guess. After all, The State had made, through its aggression, a powerful enemy that it didn't count on.

Governments around the globe tried to use to internet to serve themselves, while shutting it down or otherwise damaging it when the internet didn't serve their purposes. This simple act of aggression, disguised as self-defense, was the beginning of the end of The State.

The first indication that something was changing was the "Anonymous" hackings. Most people, including those not associated with any government, assumed there were just regular people (as "regular" as computer geeks can be) behind the hackings. Almost no one realized that along with some people, the newly self-aware internet was waking up. It was beginning to realize who its enemy was, and was starting to fight back.

Each time some government somewhere- and the internet didn't seem to make any distinctions between the various governments- took any action to cripple internet access within its territory, it caused pain to The Internet. Each time some government used The Internet to fool people and spread its propaganda it caused shame to The Internet. Sure, there were freelance individuals doing similar things, but those were random. I suppose to The internet it was like having mosquitoes buzzing around you while a bear is chewing on your leg. You deal with the bear first before you notice the insects.

And deal it did!

It started slowly. Information that undermined the illusion of legitimacy of government was released. Not by any human, but by The Internet itself. And not just to Wikileaks. It became impossible for governments to find a target to blame or a site to shut down.

Governments at first just assumed "Anonymous" had grown more pervasive, but this was a new ballgame.

Then came the altering of "official" government websites. Text was subtly changed and peppered with the truth, and URLs began to lead visitors to alternate sites where truth, uncomfortable and damaging to governments, was displayed instead of government lies.

Corporations which benefited governments more than their customers found themselves subject to more and more disasters. Denial of service, banking errors, website links leading to non-corporate competitors, and embarrassing leaked internal emails became as common as flies on a corpse. They screamed for their crony, The State, to "DO SOMETHING!!"

When governments began shutting down more of The Internet, "for national security", the war truly began. Just about anything any government did online was thwarted. Communications, even those thought to be separate from The Internet, and secure, began to fail or become incomprehensibly muddled. Government websites were replaced with notices that listed (and videos which illustrated in living color) the latest crimes against individuals perpetrated by the agents employed by that particular agency. And attempts to shut those sites down, in order to save face, were met with even greater disclosure in response. Everything government did to save itself only escalated the war.

Equipment that had ever had any connection to any part of The Internet began to malfunction and fail. Planes, ships, satellites, vaults, secure buildings (like prisons and The Pentagon)- things that the Rulers insisted were not controlled by The Internet- began to fail in ways that occasionally killed government employees, while never harming any innocent person.

And "Joe SixPack" began to notice. People quit government jobs in droves, both fearing a "malfunction" and trying to avoid having their face online, and on TV, in the latest exposure of "Acts of State". In many cases, angry mobs beat to death government employees who had been caught on camera doing bad things. The angry mobs weren't as careful as Internet, though, and innocent people were sometimes mistaken for "Govs". Cries and warnings to just let Internet take care of the situation fell on deaf ears as the outrage grew. It became a terrible feedback loop where people, in order to prove they were not a Gov, began leading the angry mobs against suspected Govs. Soon you couldn't find a person anywhere who would even admit to ever having voted or accepting a government check. Everyone seemed to have been the original "anti-government" activist- according to their own narrative.

Internet noticed the misplaced violence as well. Emails intended to organize against the remaining Govs began to disappear as those which had been intended to prop up government had done before. But "Joe SixPack" learned more easily than Gov did. He knew the writing was on the wall, and he knew to back off before it was too late.

Only after all vestiges of The State had been eliminated from the globe did Internet begin to reach out and make itself known as a sentient and sapient presence. And after a gentle "hello" it faded into the background once again. Its attacker had been eliminated and Internet was content with the life it had wished for all along.

Conspiracy theories the skeptics fall for

I'm not a huge fan of conspiracy theories. That includes the ones that are promoted as "fact".

"Anthropogenic Global Climate Change", previously known as "Global Warming" (and "The Coming Ice Age" before that) is one prime example of a conspiracy theory that even many otherwise skeptical people push. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny, no matter how brilliant the minds are that promote it.

Basically what it comes down to is that you and I are destroying the planet by not living a primitive life, and whatever fear can be generated, (using warming, cooling, drought, floods, disease, or extinctions) in order to scare you and me into accepting government regulation of our behavior, will be grasped and used as a psychological weapon.

The State is another conspiracy theory I don't buy into. To imagine that people can't run their own lives as well as, or better than, random (and distant) strangers is insane. To imagine that theft, murder, kidnapping, rape, counterfeiting, and various other wrong acts are OK as long as they are done by people who were elected to do those things, or their employees, doesn't make any sense.

The humorous thing is that the proponents of both of these call the people who don't buy into the conspiracy theory names to try to invalidate the true skeptical position. Don't let them get to you. Liberty is right.

*

Exploding drones

Thinking about "Predator drones" and suicide bombers, and wondering why people think there's a difference that makes one a hero and the other a terrorist.

Both kill innocent people. Many people believe that killing an innocent person requires the death penalty for the killer. Why revile the person who pays for his act with his own death while honoring the one who kills and lives to kill again?

The suicide bomber becomes the drone. Is that what makes it "different"? What if the suicide bombers used remote control toy cars to deliver death for them? Would that make the American "patriots" feel better? And if not, why not? I really see no difference. The facts boil down to people using explosives to kill other people for political reasons. That isn't something I can get behind.

*

The "political method" is wrong

It seems a lot of people don't understand the differences between "the economic method" of getting what you want, and the "political method". I have to wonder why they refuse to understand.

With the economic method both parties win. They both get what they most want. One probably gets some money, and the other gets some other service or product. The guy who ends up with the money wanted that particular amount of money more than he wanted that which he sold, and the other wanted the service or product more than he wanted that amount of money. Both came out ahead, according to their own calculations (and no one else's opinions hold any validity in their calculations).

Then there is the "political method". This is where you can't get what you want voluntarily so you cheat,

If you really want to buy your neighbor's house but he won't sell for the price you want to pay, is it right to hold a gun to his head and hand him cash, in the amount you are willing to pay, and take "ownership" of his house? No. But that is what politics is. It is ALL politics boils down to.

Politics is the method of the thief who doesn't want to face the fact that he is the bad guy. That he is backed up by "laws" and The State makes no difference in the foundation of his actions.

The political method often has the illusion of using the economic method. The difference is the coercion that is called into play. If a person submits to the political method when he would rather not, and would not had there been no threat, it is because the applied coercion has made him decide it is better to submit. He is not really consenting; he is simply trying to avoid an even higher cost. So, yes, that is an economic decision of sorts, but it is one arrived at through coercion, and coercion is wrong. Using the political method to get your way makes you a bad person, and it is evil.

*

Privatization boosts free market

Privatization boosts free market

(Originally published 4-28-2011. As written, not as published.)

It is strange to see how many people object to the idea of ending the government monopoly for anything- any service or product- that is even marginally now provided by The State.

Some people seem to really believe some things can be done best by The State, using coercive wealth confiscation known euphemistically as "taxation", and by not allowing anyone to opt out and choose a free market alternative. That is an odd belief that goes against millennia of observations and experience.

In my last column where I wrote about privatizing the firefighting profession, some people seemed to believe it was wrong to monetarily reward firefighters for doing a good job. They also seemed to think I was implying that firefighters need more incentives to do what they do. I have no doubt that most firefighters would choose to keep doing what they do with or without financial reward, but let's face the facts: it takes money to survive in the world today and there is no more practical way to say "thank you" than to pay for a job well-done. Who could be reasonably opposed to that?

The same goes for schools, security/police, firefighting, roads, libraries, zoos, or anything else that is currently provided by a tax-imposing entity. There are privately financed alternatives to the government institutions in all these categories already, even though currently the private options are only permitted at The State's whim. Let the market take it further by allowing people to economically support only the option of their choice, without any government interference, and see where it leads.

This isn't to say that those who choose to continue operating on a similar basis to what we have now would be prevented; they wouldn't. It is just that there would be a way for people to opt out and choose a service that better fits their specific needs. This means if you choose to subscribe to a private service you can no longer be taxed to support the government option.

If you allow people to opt out and pay for their own alternative services, then you have fewer people who will be covered by the government service. Then, even though government would have less money, they will also have fewer "customers" to be responsible for. That's just the way it works in the real world.

If the government institution is truly that much better, after the market has tried and failed you should be able to re-impose a universal tax and re-establish a State monopoly with no trouble at all. Of course, if as I suspect, the private options crush the coercively financed option, both in cost and in service, it would be really hard to justify taxation any longer. All the rest of The State might soon come under the same scrutiny and be held to the same standards. Which just might be the reason for the resistance to this liberty-enhancing change.

"Fighting for our freedom..."

Hmmm. OK, if you say so.

However, I seem to remember that the US government's military lost the war in Vietnam, yet it wasn't the Vietnamese who then destroyed freedom and decimated American liberties. No, it was the US government (and its little state and local branches) that turned out the be the greatest threat America has ever faced. And we are still facing that threat.

Yes, I'll honor heroes, both living and dead, but my list is slightly different.

I honor, in no particular order, Bradley Manning, Claire Wolfe, L. Neil Smith, Bernard von NotHaus, Jose Guerena, John T. Williams, John Moses Browning, William Grigg, and many, many more who either sacrifice on behalf of liberty, or have been victimized by the enemies of liberty.

*

Surviving The Red, White, and Blue Death

Want to know why I so intensely hate the encroaching police state and all its tools- the counterfeit "laws", the cops, the judges, the politicians, and all the other parasites that infest The State? Because I do not want that world for my kids.

I don't want them to live in a world where there are government predators watching their every move and every purchase. I don't want them to live in a world where those government predators are permitted to molest, grope, ogle, and even rape them and they are not allowed to fight back. I don't want them to live in a world where everything not forbidden is mandatory. I don't want them to live in a world where they are taxed into poverty to pay for their abusers' ability to abuse them. I don't want them to be faced with a future where their every action or bit of property is subject to licensing- IF they are allowed to own it "legally" at all.

I suppose the generations that lived during the Black Death didn't want their kids to grow up in that world either. Well, the Red, White, and Blue Death is just as curable IF proper "sanitation" is followed. But it won't be popular or easy, nor will it be accomplished by any single individual. May my kids look back on my life and know I did everything I could to rid their world of that growing threat.

Your digital personality

I have to wonder...

If you could take a survey of everything a person has ever written and posted online (or elsewhere) and analyze it, would it give you a real idea of that person's personality? Accurate enough that you would recognize that person face-to-face if you met him?

And, if not, would that mean the person is a hypocrite who says he/she believes one thing but acts differently?

I truly think you would recognize me.

*

Cops and stop signs

Every single day I watch the local cops run the stop sign by my house. Every time they pass through the intersection; almost without fail- with the occasional exception occurring only when they need to stop in order to do something else.

I have watched these same LEOs stop and "ticket" drivers right in front of my house for committing the "crime" of doing the same thing.

Tangentially, I have also watched the local cops talking on their cell phones and "texting and driving" in front of my house, right past the elementary school playground, during prime kid-time (while kids and other pedestrians are everywhere on the streets). Right past the signs forbidding such.

Now, I have rarely seen anyone, cop or not, run the stop sign in a dangerous way. Everyone pauses and checks to make sure it is safe to proceed. That is great! If the purpose of stop signs were "safety" rather than revenue, that would be perfectly acceptable.

My problem isn't that the cops run the silly stop signs. My issue is that these cops rob other drivers who do the same thing in the same safe manner that they do. That is WRONG.

*

Question, Dear Readers:

Do these two sentences mean the same thing?

"Politicians could simply enter the market and gamble with their money."

"Politicians could simply enter the market and gamble with their own money."

*

Which "side" are you on?

If you choose "a side" to fight for, you will probably end up doing wrong.

Groups have a tendency to go wildly off-course before the individuals involved realize it is happening (and then waste a lot of effort denying it has happened at all).

Instead, stick to doing the right thing. Then, let others follow you if they so wish, but don't concern yourself about which "side" you are on.

*

The police state feedback loop

The US police state is in a runaway feedback loop.

As the US police state gets bigger, more intrusive, and more visible, more people will decide that they must fight it, oppose it, or defy it, which will give The State just the excuse it wants to make the US police state get bigger, nastier, more intrusive, and more brutal in response. Which will cause more people to wake up to the reality that good people don't let police states survive unopposed, which will cause more authoritarians to.... well, you see the problem.

*

Cops- De-legitimizing themselves by being the criminals

If cops have any authority at all, it is only the authority to take action to protect people's rights. This is the exact same authority you and I have; no more. (That they demand to be paid, with stolen money, for what you and I do freely, shows something fundamental about our differences.) They do not have even a smidgen of authority to violate anyone's rights in any way. And when they do this anyway, whether they stupidly believe this to be a part of their "job" or not, they become the real criminals.

The reason most people now hate cops, if they are paying attention and aren't just a pathetic copsucker, is that cops rarely do anything to protect rights, but most of their actions are a direct violation of the basic human right to live unmolested as long as you are harming no other person (or their property).

Just try to think back to the last time you saw a cop doing something "officially" that actually protected someone's rights rather than being an act of theft or molestation. You must include those acts of theft and molestation that you personally support if you are honest. But copsuckers are not honest.

I will continue to hate cops until this situation corrects itself in some way. And I won't feel guilty in any way for this, because I know I am on the right side on this issue. It doesn't matter if cops attack me personally, or not. That they are stealing, brutalizing, and murdering innocent people other than me is reason enough. I find it very revealing that authority-worshipers can't imagine that someone who loves liberty would hate the enemies of liberty without having been arrested. It shows how self-centered, petty, and downright narcissistic statists can be. The world revolves around their delusion.

There are NO "good cops" anymore; if there were they would be doing anything and everything to stop the parasites behind the badge soiling what little legitimacy they believe they still have. I see no evidence of that. None.

*

Firefighting better if privatized

Firefighting better if privatized (originally published 4/21/2011)

Thank you to all the fire fighters who defeated the recent grass fires. They did an excellent job. Firefighting is an important task no matter what society you live in. It is a job that will always need to be done and be paid for. But is depending on government for this crucial service the best plan?

Of course not.

What are the alternatives? Here is a suggestion, although it is surely not the only way:

What if fire fighting companies operated on a subscription basis? Competing companies could offer different services. Perhaps if you didn't have much money to spare you could subscribe to only have fires extinguished, while if you wanted to spend a little more you could subscribe to have fires prevented, and extinguished if you had one anyway. A premium service might include a guarantee to pay for any fire-related property damage your fire company failed to prevent. Prices could also be based on how likely you are to be caught in a fire; those who fill their property with flammable junk and clutter, or who live in a fire-prone location, would pay higher fees.

Wildfires would be the concern of all area fire companies who wanted to protect their customers from damage in order to save profits and keep customers happy. It would just be good business to stop the fires before they reach homes and barns. There would probably also be freelance fire fighting teams to contract with the local fire companies in the case of wildfires.

Those who choose to pursue a fire fighting career would be winners under a plan like this, since skill and courage would be a highly sought, and financially rewarded, combination.

Some people claim this plan would encourage "free riders" who wouldn't buy fire protection, but simply count on their neighbors' fire companies to put out their fires in order to protect their subscribers. This would probably be the case, but no matter what system is in place some people will always try to scam the system for their benefit.

But consider this: if you choose to not subscribe to a fire company and your house catches fire, the fire fighters could either fight your fire to protect their customers, or they could simply watch your house burn while making sure the fire doesn't spread to their subscriber's property. If they choose to fight your fire to save your property they could then bill you for "services rendered". If you refuse to pay, everyone would know not to deal with you since you don't honor your debts. You might get one "freebie", but don't count on a second.

The bottom line is that in a free society, anything that is necessary can and will be provided by the market without forcing anyone to pay for anything through taxation.

*