[suzzer99]

jack, can please address my questions wrt how things are actually going to play out in real life? Do you honestly believe this country would be a better place w/o guaranteed emergency room care, emissions standards, wheelchair ramps, civil rights laws, anti-trust laws, auto-safety regulations, the interstate highway system, endangered species laws, etc. etc. etc.?

My fundamental problem with libertarianism is this all-or-nothing attitude. I have no problem with the idea that *some* or even *a lot* of government spending is complete waste. But to say that *all* of the laws enacted to help sick/poor people, keep a level playing field for business, or protect the environment are completely unecsessary makes no sense. To be honest it seems to me like libertarianism attracts people who want things to be black and white in life, and can't handle compromise or grey areas.

Watch Gangs of NY. NYC used to be a lot more like the system you describe. Firefighters were paid by the job. So they used to go to war over who put out the fire, and let the house burn to the ground sometimes. Then the poor rioted and started sacking homes uptown. It finally dawned on the people with some money that they might be better off at least making sure the lowest rung of society had *some* level of basic services to keep the situation from total chaos. Sort of like how even George Bush gets that we have to do something about aids in Africa. Or *we* will be dealing with the fallout for 100 years to come.

No system is perfect. But at least from this perspective at this point in time, the western brand of socio-capitalism seems about the best solution. Your answer sounds more like Somalia.