/polidicks/ - Politics

>mfw libertarians will never have girlfriends

t. libby terran

In my region there's an escarpment that runs through the area. Most of the existing road cuts were built by private owners to generate some toll revenue.

So the free market does create roads. It's just that you have to pay directly for their use.

>>1305

>No Firefighters

People can hire people to put out fires relatively easily. They can also purchase fire insurance or, y'know, do it like they used to where the town got together to help put out fires. Firefighters are the result of cities trying to cram too many people into an area they weren't designed for.

>No Vaccines

If anything, the free market makes it more likely for private schools to force vaccinations, not to mention it's dirt cheap when the medical companies are competing/trying to develop better vaccines.

>No Police

You're right, they're called private security, they're held accountable for their actions, and you can fire them/hire someone else if you don't like the service provided.

Oh, and…

http://rare.us/story/texas-town-sees-crime-drop-by-almost-two-thirds-after-firing-police-hiring-private-security/

>No public school
>Implying that's a bad thing

>>1318

>If someone doesn't have fire insurance then the fire will spread to the neighbors

You seem to forget than an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If the fire insurance company has to help cover lost items (much like house insurance), they would rather send out their teams to another person's house.

>Also they wont be able to respond to fires nearly as quickly.

Do you know what Uber is? If this were true, then why does a Taxi cab or Uber (or hell, a fucking pizza delivery boy) show up faster than a cop or firefighter on the scene? Because the private company has an incentive to do a good job. The moment they know there's a fire (which they'd likely force you to install some sort of fire detector to tell them or have a "call us" requirement), they'd be on the scene far faster than the firefighters (or at the very least in the same amount of time).

>This is of course not even mentioning the fact that you are edgy enough to believe poor people don't deserve fire protection

I believe poor people are kept poor by the state and safety nets such as welfare. The black middle class was on the rise until the government stepped in with welfare in the 70s, effectively degenerating them back down to niggers.

>forest fires don't deserve to be stopped.

I'm glad you bring that up, kindly look at the Rocky Mountains and (perhaps more applicable) the Black Hills of South Dakota. As a midwesterner, I'd like to point out that "preventing forest fires" has done more harm to forests than just about anything else. South Dakota now has a wood beetle problem that will likely eliminate 90% of trees in the area and allow them to more easily catch fire. This is because the trees (which should naturally catch fire about every two decades) were protected by the smokey the bear style campaigns. Now you have massive towns built around these beetle-tree-killing hills that will likely burn down one of these days because of forest fire prevention.

Ignoring that for a moment though, keep in mind the tragedy of the commons. It makes sense that these privatized forests would have property owners that would either be capable of dealing with this (their land values would drop dramatically if they don't), or hiring said companies I mentioned before.

>>1686
I-I won an internet argument?

Pure anarchists could never be much more than talking monkeys.
However, a very minimal government could provide all the services needed to keep a large civilization running smoothly without impinging much at all on citizens lives.
Even things like policing bad medicine could be handled like class-action civil suits. so, virtually all the government protections, enforced in a voluntary way could be provided by a central government that never forces or coerces anyone except dangerous criminals.