It is a straw man, you misrepresent the position. I say I don't want people who can knock down my front door in a SWAT raid just to test the quality of my water. Corporations, though it happens far less frequently, have also been known to force their ways into people's property. (Arguably at that point they are no longer a corporation but a state. That's a matter of definition.)

But nonetheless, just because you cannot imagine a time when these services were funded without taxes, doesn't mean it's impossible.

The government doesn't provide us "safe food". They do far less than you actually think, and for much of history, there was none. Yet we had refrigeration standards for produce, and the government doesn't have a very good history identifying actual injuries (among other things, claiming that ketchup was poisonous and Coca-Cola somehow dangerous, though I guess NYC still does, for different reasons). It's still unlikely that we'd have a rash of poisoned food, if the insurance companies have anything to say about it (they're ultimately picking up the bill). Some industries aren't regulated by the Federal government at all, like electronics (except for RF requirements, and even that is tested by private labs). Those big fancy warning labels aren't added to hairdryers because some government agency mandates it.

Likewise for roads, for much of history, the government did not pave or maintain roads. The first government funded transportation in the US was actually water canals.

Nor did they provide firemen. To this day there's still private firefighting services and private roads - covering rather large geographical regions. Until just a few years ago, paramedics here were privately operated (the fire department bought most of the providers out, and while the quality didn't significantly change, though it's a tad bit more expensive - government monopoly, what a shocker).

But apparently this is all impossible, you say?

Politically, big corporations and big government are a difference without a distinction.

Corporations get stuff done because someone with money thought up an idea.

Governments get stuff done because someone with a personal army thought up an idea.

Now I don't know about you, but I'll take the guy with money any day. I see a kind of big difference between a door-to-door salesman ringing my bell, and the IRS, FBI/NSA, or EPA ringing my bell. (If they're polite enough to not just knock the thing in first.)

The senate eventually passed a bill, but not before the House sent nearly a dozen bills their way.

Grandparent's words, not mine.

You can't add a rider to a budget that takes positive action, that wouldn't be "germane". You can, however, remove things from the budget. Democrats didn't like it and so they voted the budget down until they got what they wanted.

You can't use the budget to take positive action like killing babies or even raising taxes.

You can only use the budget to end existing government programs.

It has been done many times before, this is the first time in history one party has shut down the government over such a provision.

Rest assured there's plenty of people who oppose automobile protectionism for the same reason they oppose Obamacare.

Corporatism sees no political party lines.

(And I hate to break it to you, but it's Senate Democrats who voted down the budget for two weeks.)

Aww, and here I was thinking that we had to have a perfect society. But no, I guess we have to throw in the towel and give up on even trying.

Not to start an argument, but that's just unfair. You can hardly say the Tea Party types have tried to "retard legislation" (as if that's a bad thing). It's Harry Reid who for two weeks flat out refused to engage in any sort of discussion.

And in general, if a bill is unconstitutional, you can't negotiate away that fact. It's like "You wanna kill two people, I believe in not killing, so let's settle for killing just one person." It's absurd, and it invites the other party to just double their initial offering.

Under the "cartel" of Standard Oil, the price of oil fell by more than half. You were saying?

In any event, monopolies don't last long by themselves, and especially not with things like patents, protectionism, barriers to entry, and other corporate welfare that they're opposed to.

There is no one "Tea Party platform". You'll find that Tea Party supporters prefer their organization to be like the form of government they campaign for: Decentralized.

Um, "general welfare" isn't a power of congress. You should go read the Tenth Amendment.

Economics makes no such claim that people act under "rational self interest" or that people are well informed. It's not even covered in an econ class one way or the other, you'll just never hear it. The laws of economics apply regardless.

What is covered is that they're making the best decision for themselves (decisions are subjective, so that goes by definition), and that there's no coercion. The side effects of coercion (including taxes) is a whole field of study.

Grandparent probably refers to Open Source Software, which is a formally defined term. It's not enough that you can merely read the source, you have to be able to redistribute it and any changes, too.

It's because she refused to stop handling food properly. Those are the same rules that are asked of EVERYONE.