Presumably, in the same way that any other tax evasion will. Does the police force, military, court system, fire brigade etc. enslave people?

Yes. How many people here would willingly pay to hurt other people because they like to inhale the smoke of certain burning plants? Or willingly pay to hurt brown people overseas just because they are brown?

If you are unwilling to pay for these government "services," then I must ask, why are you paying for them, dummy?

You might say, "because I'm afraid the government will hurt me by seizing assests/arresting me/killing me or my family."

If you could travel back in time, and ask blacks why the stayed on the plantation, what do you think they might say?

1. America has a "free" market for health insurance/care

No, we don't. Half or more of the health care dollars are spent by the government through various programs, and the industry is heavily regulated.

2. America pays more than most Western countries for health insurance/care

Health insurance is not health care. The fact that the government has so horribly conflated the two through various perverse incentives is a big part of the problem.

4. Most States have one insurer that has >40% of the insurance market

Because competition is not presently allowed over state lines. The monopolistic behavior of the insurance market is a direct result of government regulation.

Government regulation is fucking healthcare, the answer to broken regulation fucking healthcare is more regulation on healthcare? Puh-lease.

I think even most capitalists can agree that for profit news only perpetuates those who have money to buy and pay people off and threaten peoples jobs so we never hear about all the corruption.

I think you have no idea what real capitalists think, or perhaps don't even have the slightest clue what real capitalism is.

We've seen more real news out of Wikileaks then all commercial news sites combined

Wikileaks, a privately owned and operated news source, as an example of what's wrong with privately owned and operated news sources? While simultaneously being lauded for being better than privately owned news sources? Where's the punchline to this ridiculous train of thought?

Wikileaks, for lack of a better term, is private charity. Private charity is part of capitalism! Wikileaks is a capitalist outgrowth! In fact, one of the things that makes Wikileaks so special is that it specifically makes it difficult for governments (as well as corporations) to silence reporters! If Wikileaks were run by the US*, do you think it would ever publish any US government leaks?

Why it is that people refuse to associate private charity with capitalism is beyond me. Private charity is capitalism's natural way of dealing with the little segments of the economy where the profit model hasn't been figured out or is presently for some reason broken, be it quality reporting or caring for the sick or disabled.

Fact is, Wikileaks simply wouldn't exist is a society where all wealth was publicly/governmentally owned, because those in charge would eventually recognize the danger it poses to their power and "repurpose it for something more productive for the good of society."

To say that capitalism isn't solving the news problem is intellectually dishonest, at best. Wikileaks is, in and of itself, great evidence to the contrary.

*Insert any government here.

Pro-selfownership does not necessarily mean pro-IP. Don't know where you got that from, but a lot of non-libertarians misunderstand self-ownership, so I'll give you a pass.

Wikipedia sums it up nicely:

Many libertarians consider copyright and patent to be forms of enclosure â" illegitimate government creation of exclusive privilege by prohibiting most individuals from accessing commons. Copyright and patents are government-granted monopolies on production, and no better than a government-granted monopoly on producing food or oil.

Trademark, unlike copyright and patent, can be construed as a protection against fraud and misrepresentation: it ensures that others cannot abuse a successful product name to promote an inferior knockoff. Since most libertarians believe that fraud should be criminal, they agree, in this regard, with trademark law.

However, in many jurisdictions the concept of trademark dilution has developed to protect trademarks as a property right, securing the investment the trademark owner has made in establishing and promoting a strong mark without regard to likelihood for confusion. This has even been used to limit free speech about a product, something few libertarians would be likely to defend.

A "science" degree in creationism certainly isn't a degree in science. There is no way I would ever hire anyone with such a degree. If anything, I would see them as potentially being very disruptive in the workplace.

Woah there, bud. Be careful. That might be religious discrimination.

Yay law of unintended consequences!

Why the fucking fuck is the government dictating what PHDs a University and issue, anyway? Does this draconian, freedom-hating measure only apply publicly funded universities, or is it anyone?

Well technically you are not giving it. It's your children or grandchildren who will ultimately pay the bill for the debt incurred by this generation. (Thanks mom and dad, or grandma and grandpa.)

Technically, most of them will have it taken at gunpoint; only a few will willingly give it.

My, how different the world looks with hindsight.

Hindsight? I've been saying the housing bubble is going to burst for the last 5 years ('03 to about '08, when the mantra became, "See, I fucking told you so!"), arguing with my Realtor friend, and I don't know shit about economics. It was just so unbelievably obvious to me that it's hard for me to believe our "officials" didn't see it coming. Doubly so when they then proceeded to take actions that in fact made it worse, rather than heading it off at the pass. And got rich in the process. The government version of Enron, anyone? Literally. s/stocks/housing/gi and you have the biggest fucking pump and dump scheme ever concocted by man. First at the expense of speculators, then big corporations, and now the American Taxpayer. And us fucking morons are voting for more anal raping at the expense of these losers, which is why we elected Obama over McCain instead of throwing them both to the dogs and getting Ron Paul or (shudder) Bob Barr in there. Kenneth Lay is probably snickering at the genius of it all and kicking himself in the ass for not thinking of it himself.

No, far from surprising, this seems downright intentional to me.

I'm not alone, either. In fact, other silly Austrian-school economists were predicting the housing collapse for way longer than myself. It was never a question of if for them, but rather of when.

Now, I'll admit I never saw the investment banks or AIG getting tanked, but that has less to do with the predictability of the situation and more to do with me not knowing shit about economics and not having thought it all the way through. Although in some sense, it's impossible to think through what all the unintended consequences of government action might be. Just today I was thinking about how the government has poured trillions into the banks trying to get them to lend, and they still aren't, and I was theorizing about why that was, and realized that there was a potential scenario where the more money you injected, the less incentive there would be to lend it out. On the surface, it seems retarded that making more money available would make lending harder, but when you really think it through, there's a good reason why it might. And if I do say so myself, that's a pretty big fucking unintended consequence.

In closing, a random related tangent: it's only the big government Keynes that have been blindsided by this, which should tell you something about that economic model/theory...