Continuing the philosophical discussion started in the "The ushers have gone TOO far" thread...

[RichH]

I can't believe I'm doing this, since I usually dispise politics and mostly keep my own to myself, but:

For the sake of argument, I'm going to be one person to say that I somewhat see Kyle's POV.  I don't currently completely agree with it, for reasons that I'll explain, but I see it.  

I'm very much in favor of privately owned roads.  That's the no-brainer example, IMO.  There has been some interesting developments...such as the privately built and run toll roads in CA (now back under public control: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/91_Express_Lanes ) and the sale of the Indiana Toll Road.  But really, these are more of a public/private partnership model than a fully-blown private highway ownership.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/about/toll/status.htm
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/06mar/06.htm

And the fact that the USPS has a statutory monopoly on non-urgent mail, outbound international letters, and exclusive rights to mailboxes is somewhat wrong, IMO.  Why can't there be a competing postal service?

Now...in the past, I've had what I called "Libertarian leanings."  I was always in favor of the smallest government possible.  Then Enron happened.  And WorldCom.  And Adelphia, Tyco, and Qwest, too.  Throw in a threat to Amtrak, and the US thumbing its nose in the direction of Kyoto, GE admitting to leaving the Hudson River a toxic mess, and something about Global somethingorother, and I've shifted my position a bit.  When money is involved, you generally can't trust people or businesses to do the right thing.  The threat of government action is necessary.  Obviously, I've headed down the "green" road rather than the "anarchist" road.

And I won't even begin to talk about what the current administration has done to me politically.

Oh, and I was one of those who, after a layoff and my COBRA benefits went away, accepted the responsibility to live without health insurance.  It was either food or insurance for me.  The job I found to pay the bills didn't offer benefits.  Somehow, I survived that period, but accepted the risk.  The big stinker was that there exists inexpensive catastrophic insurance, but it was illegal in NYS, which doesn't make sense to me.  The "Healthy NY" program hadn't started yet.

OK...that was rambling, and maybe it didn't contribute anything to this discussion, but there ya go.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote krose][quote DeltaOne81]I dunno, this quote seems to me to be as much a conclusion hidden in a definition as anything else - i.e. political spin. Its fine to have an opinion, but its not really proof of anything.[/quote]
Do you disagree with his definition?[/quote]

I do, in several ways. First off, as I said, the part you seem to be relying on - that anything other than work is theft - is not a definition. It is a political conclusion disguised as a definition. Its no better than me saying "well, my only choices to vote this year were Democrats or evil. So now let me tell you my political philosophy based on that."

If you want to say that taxes are theft (as you have), fine, make the argument (as you have). But making it axiomatic by turning your opinion into a definition achieves nothing.


Second, yes, I disagree fundamentally. There are other ways that people can achieve the wealth by which they meet their desires. For instance, inheritance and gifts. Yes, this wealth was initially created through work (or whatever), but those that are using it to satisfy their desires have not lifted a finger for it. Second, unearned income - interest, dividends, capital gains - in this case money generates more money. Yes, the initial wealth was generated by work, but the additional amounts are not.

And that's just what I can come up with off the top of my head while I eat my lunch.


The definition is too simplistic - too black and white - and it is created to achieve a support a certain political conclusion. It is not an honest intellectual exercise. To be so it would have acknowledge a much wider range of possibilities - shades of grey - and it would also need to not include value judgments with it.

I know what you're saying, but I can't agree.

So, you disagree that taking my property without my explicit permission under the threat of force is not robbery?

Actually no, I *agree* that its not robbery .

Good catch.  But seriously...

Note the dictionary definition of robbery: "The act or an instance of unlawfully taking the property of another by the use of violence or intimidation."

You think that "unlawfully" provides an exception for elected bodies to take your property by the use of violence or intimidation, but I ask you: If 51% of the people want to strip you of X% of your income or possessions, at what X does the legislation enacted to allow this suddenly become unlawful?

I would agree there's an X% at which it is bad policy. At which it is harmful. At which it is immoral. At which all those with substantial income would leave the society. Or a variety of other bad things. I would pin no percent - nor say that there fundamentally even is a percent - at which is becomes robbery.

I say that all takings are unlawful because I do not recognize the legitimacy of governments to violate my natural right to property.

Fine, but you're trying to create an axiom again. "Its robbery because I don't recognize it as not being such." While, you're entitled to your opinion, that's all it is, and I will continue to disagree.

And you have provided zero evidence on how you could have a society without laws, without rules, without law enforcement, without worker or consumer protections of any kind, without any common social protections, that wouldn't be riddled with violence, revenge, theft, disease, a etc.

This is where reading Hoppe's book would be helpful, because I simply can't adequately summarize it into a few paragraphs...

What services does government provide that people cannot provide for themselves through private contracts?

Certainly not roads: there's no reason roads cannot be privately owned and maintained.

Basic economics would say it wouldn't be. Primarily game theory. You have a choice to contribute to maintain roads sufficient or not. So does everyone else.

If other people chose to do so, then your contribution doesn't matter much so you're better off keeping it - your contribution would not provide enough direct benefit to yourself to be worthwhile. If other people don't chose to do so, then your contribution again would not provide enough to make a different for you that's worth that amount of money. Therefore in both situations, a rational person would decide not to contribute. Contributions would be sparse, and roads would fall into disrepair.

I believe in the basic good of people, but I also believe in people basically looking out for their own self-interest - greed, if you will - which I take no issue with, its natural. But it does mean an entirely Laissez-faire economy would fail miserably.

Certainly not local security: lots of people contract for security through private security companies.  Gated communities are a good example of this.

Okay, but lets follow this to day 2 through year 20, shall we?

Only the well off would be able to afford such protection (btw, gated communities hardly cover it - we're talking private armed guards and security details). Those who cannot afford it would be unprotected from crime, which would substantially encourage criminal behavior - especially among those who have fallen on hard times already.

So when they did fall upon job loss or such, they would begin robbing from their neighbors who cannot afford security in order to feed themselves and their families. Crime would be rampant in poor neighborhoods. So would injury and death. And since I figure in your society that medical care would not be provided - nor death services - to anyone who couldn't pay for it, disease and dead bodies would likely be common fixtures on those streets.

Likewise, if any epidemic started, it would basically impossible to contain. And if you think that this would only effect those who are poor (cause, too bad for them anyway, right?), it would most certainly end up harming those who live on 'the other side of town' as well. Diseases spread, get into the water supply, etc.


But there's only so much that you can take from those who have little to begin with, right? The logical behavior would be to begin to devise ways to steal from those with better means. Of course since they're probably all protected by armed guards, it would require groups of people working together in order to overwhelm those defense forces and the inhabitants of the houses (who would likely be armed in your society). So what we'd end up with is gangs and organized crime, who would rob houses of those with greater means, and probably kill the guards and occupants at the same time.

Of course, such a situation would make the cost of armed guards astronomically high - if you could find people willing to become them at all. Not to mention the arson associated with these acts would make fire protection very costly. The murder rate would make life and disability insurance exceedingly expensive.

What you'd be left with was rampant violence, if not civil war. And all those taxes you abandoned would be replaced with exceedingly expensive insurance, and, murder.

Now you can say 'fine, so I'd have to pay through the nose for all those services and have put my life and those of my family at substantial risk, but at least I made the choice to live that way.' Great, good for you, just like the rest of us make the choice to life this way every day and every election.

Certainly not insurance: all forms of insurance---SS (insurance against living too long), short-term unemployment insurance, welfare (long-term unemployment insurance), health insurance---can be provided privately.

And all currently are, save SS and unemployment. But again, only certain aspects of society would be able to afford it, leading to more poverty and feeding again into the nightmare scenario above.

LOL... wow, I can't believe you really believe this.  Ever notice that only government expects us to put up with inconvenience and inefficiency and still pay a premium for it?  Public roads are terribly run:... the maintainers don't care about inconveniencing people (e.g., traffic caused by rush-hour construction... yet you are conditioned to believe that there is no better way to run the roads.

Oh, I believe there are better ways to run the roads. I believe there are problem in the system. I just don't buy for a second that private industry and personal optional payments is in any way one of them.

Reform the current system... sure. Throw the baby out with the bathwater... that's where you lose me.

Btw, I don't believe for a second that 'maintainers don't care about inconveniencing people' due to rush hour construction and the like. In what fantasy world do you life where all construction projects can be completed between 6 PM on Friday and 6 am on Monday? Well, I guess we already know that.

Everything you said here is based on faulty assumptions I noted above.  First, imagine that all property---that means everything, including the roads---are privately owned and that private owners had access to privately-contracted security of a more or less unlimited degree through local insurers and reinsurers acting as private security contractors. Play devil's advocate for a moment and tell me how petty crime would be less of an issue.

Do you mean more of an issue? If so, I think I've shown how crime way beyond petty would be much more of an issue.

If you want me to play devils advocate by taking your side, then yes, I certainly see how there could be some modest improvement in corruption and incompetence in certain aspects. All of which be below the level of noise of the effects created on the larger level.

[Rosey]

[quote ftyuv]Ok, well I guess I'm an accessory to robbery, then.  If you're defining robbery as any instance where one entity forces another to surrender its property, then yes, taxes are robberies, governments are robbers, and anyone who supports them is an accessory.[/quote]
Admitting the problem is the first step to recovery.

Of course, in that you consort with all of these robbers and accomplices, and in fact benefit off of the benefits they provide, you're also an accomplice.

I don't want to live in this system, but I don't have a realistic choice.  I am, however, an advocate of its destruction, so that gives me the edge morally.

There are many evils in the world.  I'll take the evil of your narrowly-defined robbery over the evils of the wealthy being completely unchecked and subjugating the poor relentlessly.

You say this, and yet history has repeatedly shown that monopolies not backed up by force (the only real examples being governments and mercantilist arrangements between corporations and governments) always become top-heavy and eventually fall to smaller, more flexible competitors.  In other words, they don't stay monopolies for long.

If you really think a shiny new fire truck will make all the difference, well, I don't know what to say except that I'm not willing to take the (very substantial, imo) risk that you're completely wrong.

You set up that straw man, not me.  Firefighting technology has improved substantially: firefighters are able to call on new chemicals; they can personally withstand harsher conditions due to improvements in equipment; hydraulic ladders enable them to effectively fight fires more quickly on higher floors; improved communication and faster trucks make deployment more efficient; etc.  The days of private fire protection are more than 100 years old, so comparing their efficacy to today's modern fire departments is simply absurd.

Let's play a similar hypothetical guessing game in reverse to illustrate the illogic of your position.  If auto manufacturers had been government-owned since 1930, would you similarly argue that private auto manufacturing had been tried and failed?  I mean, we have much better safety equipment and higher quality standards now, so clearly the very concept of private car makers must have been the problem, right?  Of course that wouldn't be the case, because you know that these things were done in the private sector using the power of the market.  I fail to see why the same would not be true of fire protection and other services we currently rely on a government monopoly for.

Cheers,
Kyle

[ugarte]

[quote DeltaOne81]a lot of nested stuff[/quote]You have to fix the tags to make that opus readable.Nevermind.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote ugarte][quote DeltaOne81]a lot of nested stuff[/quote]You have to fix the tags to make that opus readable.Nevermind.[/quote]

Yeah, sorry, took me a couple edits to get the tags right.

[Rosey]

[quote RichH]Then Enron happened.[/quote]
LLC protection: government and mercantilism.

And WorldCom.

Ditto.

And Adelphia, Tyco, and Qwest, too.

Ditto, ditto, ditto.

Throw in a threat to Amtrak,

Government-run railroad.

and the US thumbing its nose in the direction of Kyoto,

Why not simply hold corporations and their owners liable for their pollution by suing them for damages?  If no damages can be demonstrated, then what business do you have telling people what they can and can't do on their own private property?

Get rid of government regulation putting limits on enforcement of natural rights (e.g., the aforementioned LLC and the EPA's virtual monopoly on cases involving environmental protection) and people would be able to organize and demand payment for violation of their right to property.

GE admitting to leaving the Hudson River a toxic mess,

Again, damages.  The people who own property on the Hudson River and those who are downstream of it have a pretty easy case to be made... but ridiculous restrictions on class action suits (in fact, the entire class action system) make this all but impossible.

Again, blame mercantilism: the system has evolved to benefit the elite---the politically well-connected and corporations---and since there's a monopoly on justice, you are restricted from enforcing your natural rights when the system inevitably fails to deliver actual justice.

When money is involved, you generally can't trust people or businesses to do the right thing.  The threat of government action is necessary.

As I've noted above, mercantilism---not capitalism---is the problem in every single case.

The big stinker was that there exists inexpensive catastrophic insurance, but it was illegal in NYS, which doesn't make sense to me.

Government!

Cheers,
Kyle

[ugarte]

[quote krose]
Why not simply hold corporations and their owners liable for their pollution by suing them for damages? [/quote]So no government but ... courts? With what power of enforcement.

[RichH]

[quote krose]

Throw in a threat to Amtrak,

Government-run railroad.[/quote]

Well, a poorly-run government-subsidized railroad.  A well-run system is possible (Metro-North), but that backs into your argument that taxes = theft, which I won't make a novel argument either fer or agin' here.

The mismanagement and misfunding of the entity that currently exists as Amtrak has been downright deplorable and has relegated rail travel as a laughable transportation option in this country.  I would love for a third party/private entity to build a dedicated high-speed rail system that works.  But that isn't going to happen.

[Rosey]

Fred, frankly I can't take it anymore.  You make too many statements that are either false dichotomies or unsubstantiated assertions, and then you propose worst-case scenarios without considering the disincentives to those situations ever occurring in the first place.

I know a lot about democracy, socialism, and anarchy, both from life experience and from significant reading and discussions with other people.  You know next to nothing about anarchy, and have only straw men to set up against democracy and socialism (or "liberalism" or "social democracy", if you like).  It's very hard to have an argument with someone who is ignorant of the basic facts on which these theories rely, because it requires me to spend 25 hours a day explaining things that are better explained by others who have spent a lifetime researching and developing these ideas.  Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be consdescending; I'm merely being practical given the demands of my job and life.  I cannot do all the work, and if you're not interested in learning about this stuff, I wouldn't be able to force feed it to you anyway.

If you're interested in learning about how anarchy could actually work, I refer you to Hoppe's book, or anything written by Murray Rothbard.  A few short articles that can start you out are:

What is the free market?
Why abolishing government would not bring chaos
What it means to be an anarcho-capitalist
The gun in the room

These articles can all be read in 10 minutes or less and will give you the tools to answer your questions and refute your imaginary scenarios much better than I can answer or refute them one by one.

Cheers,
Kyle

[Rosey]

[quote ugarte][quote krose]
Why not simply hold corporations and their owners liable for their pollution by suing them for damages? [/quote]So no government but ... courts? With what power of enforcement.[/quote]
Imagine courts and judgment enforcement, but without a monopoly on either.  A good way to think about it is arbitration and repo-men.

In a natural order, if you are entitled to damages, you take them and then make sure you have enough defense to protect yourself from retaliation; in reality, you let the repo-men hired by your insurance company do the dirty work, but they are going to insist on a neutral judgment in their favor first, and would prefer to handle the transfer amicably rather than violently.  Remember that they are obligated to protect you in the event of retaliation, so they have an incentive not to expose themselves to that extra liability if possible.

Cheers,
Kyle

[ugarte]

[quote krose][quote ugarte][quote krose]
Why not simply hold corporations and their owners liable for their pollution by suing them for damages? [/quote]So no government but ... courts? With what power of enforcement.[/quote]
Imagine courts and judgment enforcement, but without a monopoly on either.  A good way to think about it is arbitration and repo-men.
In a natural order, if you are entitled to damages, you take them and then make sure you have enough defense to protect yourself from retaliation; in reality, you let the repo-men hired by your insurance company do the dirty work, but they are going to insist on a neutral judgment in their favor first, and would prefer to handle the transfer amicably rather than violently.  Remember that they are obligated to protect you in the event of retaliation, so they have an incentive not to expose themselves to that extra liability if possible.[/quote]I don't know whether to laugh or cry. This is all so divorced from any conceivable reality that includes humans that I'm not even going to bother. Let your anarchist society go about repo-ing each other's possessions until either (a) the strongest person has acquired everything by self-proclaiming "damages" from everyone else or (b) the professional repo-men have all of the money because of all of the fees they have obtained by stealing everyone else's stuff back-and-forth.

[Rosey]

[quote ugarte]I don't know whether to laugh or cry. This is all so divorced from any conceivable reality that includes humans that I'm not even going to bother. Let your anarchist society go about repo-ing each other's possessions until either (a) the strongest person has acquired everything by self-proclaiming "damages" from everyone else or (b) the professional repo-men have all of the money because of all of the fees they have obtained by stealing everyone else's stuff back-and-forth.[/quote]
As with Fred, you are building a scenario that simply wouldn't occur because there are disincentives to that activity.

Basically, insurance companies representing people in a dispute have an incentive to work together rather than to battle each other: it's expensive to defend against retaliation for repo activity that is viewed by the opposing side as illegitimate.  So there's a natural incentive to work together to resolve these disputes in a peaceful way that still accommodates the grievances of the plantiff.

It's similar to war between countries: war is expensive, so for the most part countries settle their disputes in the world court, the UN, or various other structures set up in the anarchy comprising most of the world's nations.

Roy Halliday wrote an interesting essay on libertarian liability law that examines these precise questions and describes in much more detail the disincentives to widespread repo-man activity: http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/libelhtm.htm

Cheers,
Kyle

[Rosey]

[quote RichH]I would love for a third party/private entity to build a dedicated high-speed rail system that works.  But that isn't going to happen.[/quote]
It might be regulation, but I suspect it simply isn't profitable to build a widespread rail system in a country as sparsely populated as the US.  Air travel won for a reason, and it certainly wasn't because the rails haven't been handsomely subsidized by the government for many, many years.

The northeast corridor could actually be profitable if Amtrak weren't so incompetent, but they are used to being able to suck off the teat of government, so instead of improving service to make rail travel an actually appealing alternative to the shuttle, they just whine at Congress for more taxpayer money.

Cheers,
Kyle

[DeltaOne81]

[quote krose]Fred, frankly I can't take it anymore.  You make too many statements that are either false dichotomies or unsubstantiated assertions, and then you propose worst-case scenarios without considering the disincentives to those situations ever occurring in the first place.[/quote]

I try not to make false dichotomies. I try not to claim that its 'this or that', I know there are a range of options in between.

If you are referring to the game theory bit on roads, game theory in its basic forms unfortunately is only illustrative with a yes or no situation. But that doesn't mean it has to be taken that way. You can replace that scenario with a yes or no choice on each and every dollar - leading to all sort of potential shades of gray. I venture the result is the same.

If you're talking about the latter scenario of lack of law enforcement for the poor, I intended no dichotomy. I realize there are a range of choices available to anyone in those situations. I merely illustrated what one of the options were, that would undoubtedly be one of the options chosen by some number of people. And one that seems to me to be one that would happen a substantial portion, if not a plurality of the time.

I know a lot about democracy, socialism, and anarchy, both from life experience and from significant reading and discussions with other people.  You know next to nothing about anarchy, and have only straw men to set up against democracy and socialism (or "liberalism" or "social democracy", if you like).

Sorry, I don't buy the Tom Cruise argument - "I know about this stuff and you don't." I talk politics, I read politics, I've considered many different idea - and have indeed changed my perspective and opinions on this when the facts presented themselves and were convincing.

I do not claim to be an expert on all things, by any means. But I do believe that I am knowledgeable enough for my opinions on things to be reasonable, and my idea on consequences and results to be feasible.


I hate straw men. I hate them when they're used against me, and I hate them always. A straw man is when I take an argument that is not yours, say its yours, and then refute it - i.e. democrats want to raise everyone's taxes and surrender to terrorists.

I feel I did no such thing. You do not agree with my conclusions, fine, but all I did was suppose consequences on the portion of society which could not afford any private law enforcement. I did not claim that you wanted it that way, or that you said they didn't deserve it, or that you hoped they all just killed each other, or some other strawman like that.

All I did was piece together a result of your actual policy proposals. You can disagree with my conclusion, but that is not a strawman. If you feel that at any place I stated as yours an proposal that was not yours, do let me know, and I will apologize for doing so.

I'm merely being practical given the demands of my job and life.  I cannot do all the work, and if you're not interested in learning about this stuff, I wouldn't be able to force feed it to you anyway.

...

A few short articles that can start you out are:

What is the free market?
Why abolishing government would not bring chaos
What it means to be an anarcho-capitalist
The gun in the room

I do not have the time or desire to pick up a book after every online discussions I have. So I'm going to have to pass on that.

I did open up the 'why abolishing government would not bring chaos' article - it seemed to be the most appropriately titled. It had a section on law enforcement, which did not even once discuss the consequences of having portions of society that could not afford to pay for such things.

It refuted ideas about corrupt organizations, or practical considerations, or average cost, etc - all of which I am basically willing to buy. But it took no look or consideration of what would happen to those who could afford no protection, and the impacts it would have on everyone else as well.

I also looked at the others, just in case, and searched them for the phrase 'police' and 'enforce', and found no references to this either (only things like 'enforcement of contracts').

As far as I'm considered, until I have a reason to believe that those who cannot afford protection would be protected in some way, and would not be made victims of theft and homicide, there is no further discussion. Its a no go. The wrongness of allowing this to happen makes the 'wrongness' of 'lawful theft' look like childs play.

I understand that you have other things to do, so I'm not looking for a response soon. Perhaps this weekend. But can you provide any sources that discuss this scenario and how it could work out? Or do most anarchist, like the writer of the above linked 'chaos' article, just prefer to pretend that the poor don't exist? When you have some time, I would appreciate any evidence (article or otherwise) that discusses this scenario.


I have to agree with ugarte. The idea that this would not lead to a breakdown of society at multiple levels is so divorced from any reality that includes imperfect human beings, a happy result could seemingly only exist in a utopian society. When you find one, let me know.


Lastly, its an interesting twist to blame Enron, WorldCom, et al on LLC protection. In many ways, I see your point and its accurate. However, we would have no viable economy without LLC protection. Who would dare try to start a small business if its failure (and a substantial majority of small businesses fail) meant that you were substantially personally indebted. And small businesses create a majority of our jobs and innovation.

What corporation would dare take on ambitious new projects if the personal welfare of all involved depended on it? For that matter, who would want to work for a corporation if any mistake (and everyone makes mistakes) could cost them their personal wealth?


And in your world, who would get the judgments in this world of a private justice system? The person who is right, or the person who could hand the judge the money that they needed to feed their family? Judges would be bought and paid for, no less than politicians are now, probably more.

Besides... here's a little devil's advocate for you... wouldn't anyone have the right to declare that they don't recognize the jurisdiction of any particular private court? And that the repo man, by taking something against their will, were engaging in unlawful theft? Why not?

[ftyuv]

[quote krose]

There are many evils in the world.  I'll take the evil of your narrowly-defined robbery over the evils of the wealthy being completely unchecked and subjugating the poor relentlessly.

You say this, and yet history has repeatedly shown that monopolies not backed up by force (the only real examples being governments and mercantilist arrangements between corporations and governments) always become top-heavy and eventually fall to smaller, more flexible competitors.  In other words, they don't stay monopolies for long.[/quote]
I'm not so sure history really has shown that.  Some monopolies have done quite well until forcibly broken up by governments.  And even if I were to grant you that point, ok, so companies come and companies go -- within the top 5% of people in the world, there's fluctuation.  I doubt Jon Q. Poorman really cares if it's Smith & Co. or Johnson & Co. which leaves him in the gutter.

If you really think a shiny new fire truck will make all the difference, well, I don't know what to say except that I'm not willing to take the (very substantial, imo) risk that you're completely wrong.

You set up that straw man, not me.  Firefighting technology has improved substantially: firefighters are able to call on new chemicals; they can personally withstand harsher conditions due to improvements in equipment; hydraulic ladders enable them to effectively fight fires more quickly on higher floors; improved communication and faster trucks make deployment more efficient; etc.  The days of private fire protection are more than 100 years old, so comparing their efficacy to today's modern fire departments is simply absurd.

Let's play a similar hypothetical guessing game in reverse to illustrate the illogic of your position.  If auto manufacturers had been government-owned since 1930, would you similarly argue that private auto manufacturing had been tried and failed?  I mean, we have much better safety equipment and higher quality standards now, so clearly the very concept of private car makers must have been the problem, right?  Of course that wouldn't be the case, because you know that these things were done in the private sector using the power of the market.  I fail to see why the same would not be true of fire protection and other services we currently rely on a government monopoly for.

The reasons many of those private fire departments were bad wasn't that they couldn't get there in time.  It's that people couldn't afford those services.  A fire breaks out, the private FD gets there and says "Gee, your house is burning down.  That'll cost ya.  Can't pay?  Ciao."

Your car example proves my point exactly.  Not everyone can afford a car.  Among those who can, not everyone can afford a good car.  I would not consider a car a vital commodity, so I'm ok with some people having to take the bus.  But fire protection, police protection, etc -- these are vital commodities.  If you look at someone not being able to afford police protection in the same way that I look at someone not being able to afford a car, I think Prof. Farnsworth needs to fix your empathy chip.

Regarding all your research about anarchy, btw, I frankly don't buy it.  I've read articles like those before, but here's the real problem -- they're purely theoretical.  It's never -- thank goodness -- been tested in a developed country, so you can point to all the articles you want, but at the end of the day they're just people spouting off thoughts with no experimental or empirical foundation.  A gated community does not necessarily scale to a country without a police force protected by a network of gated communities.  The closest examples we have to large-scale systems without governments are places like Somalia, where warlords reign supreme, and frankly I'm pretty thankful not to be living there.