How are public libraries funded? How is public education funded? How is *anything* that is "public" funded?

Tax money, of course. Here's a question: are we allowed to choose whether or not we want to pay taxes? No, of course not; if you fail to pay your taxes you will go to jail.

Taxation is just theft on a massive scale. We all have the right to keep 100% of our hard-earned money and give it to only those we choose to.

The only just system is a system in which all exchanges are done voluntarily. That is, "I like that book, so I will open up my wallet and pay for it," Not "give me that book or I throw you in jail, peon."

To quote the great Lysander Spooner:

But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

As an example, the government builds a new public hospital, then gives it to a private corporation for management because "private is more efficient". The service is worse, the costs (supported by the State) are huge, but they move on as if this was a good idea.

What else would you expect? That's not the free market (we've never had one), that's the unfree market (we've always had an unfree market); the government stealing money from the people and giving it to whoever the hell it wants. The perfect recipe for inefficiency, poor service, high costs, waste, etc. This "privatization" crap isn't true privatization, it's still public. True privatization is when you have a company that gets 100% of its revenue from people *voluntarily* handing over their money to it.

but they all defend this absurd model of the government handing millions to privates for (mis) managing public services and facilities.

Perhaps those stupid right-wingers do, but I ain't a right-winger or a left-winger; I'm an anarcho-capitalist (aka, true free marketer) which basically means that I believe the only just system -- and the only system that will ever work -- is a system based on voluntary exchange... that is, the free market, people free to give their money to whoever they want in exchange for the goods and services they want. This idiotic system we have now is why we're all screwed. Nothing is voluntary; government says what's what and that's that. In my opinion, anyone with a brain would agree that the system we have now -- based on theft, control, and not based on voluntarism -- is a doomed, unjust model.

Of course, in either case, no one will chain you up, beat you, sell you or even hang you. Hmmm... I guess you might need to rethink your comparison to slavery.

On the contrary, you need to realize that slavery doesn't just mean white people forcing black people to work the farms at no pay, all the while being subject to beatings and hangings.

Forcing someone against their will to work for you -- enter into military service, show up for jury duty -- is indeed a form of involuntary servitude/enslavement.

It's still slavery if you're *required* to complete military service, even if you're paid a million dollars and are released after a single day.

Unless you voluntarily agree to enlist for military service, then it's slavery.

Lets go Swiss. Everyone is required to complete military service (4 to 6 years).

And the difference between that and slavery is...?

I feel that they would be stupid to turn their back on such a large potential market but they are free, nevertheless, to do as they wish.

How can they be, if they're not free to do legitimate business in the EU?

There is nothing unjust about bundling your own browser in your own OS and signing contracts with PC makers so they promise not to include other browsers with Windows on their PCs.

You're not "free to do as you wish" if there's someone there telling you you can't do something even though you're not hurting someone physically, stealing something, breaking contracts, etc. You're not free if you are sent to jail or are forced to pay hefty fines if you don't do exactly as the government says you should do.

Nobody has the right to infringe upon our rights -- not governments, not companies, not individuals.

Noone is forcing Microsoft to do anything, but if they want to be a part of the EU market they will have to abide by its laws.

The only laws that need to be followed -- in any country -- are just laws: laws that protect us against theft, assault, murder, contract-breaking, etc. These are common sense laws that really don't even need to be on paper.

Most laws dreamed up by the state are unjust laws.

Laws that say we can't do something, even though we're hurting no one, stealing nothing, breaking no signed contract, etc, are unjust laws that don't need to be followed... though you kind of do, unless you want to go to jail.

No one is forcing a company to do business anywhere, sure... but the state *is* forcing companies to do business their way or bust, which is unjust.

I actually completely agree with you. I'm not just against the state, I'm against companies that use the state as a tool to shut out competition. Most big companies (like health insurance companies) do this, I'm sure you already know.

It's just the principle of the thing I'm against. Last thing I would want is to write an OS, bundle my own browser with it, go into an agreement with PC manufacturers to not bundle other browsers with my OS (something I probably wouldn't do, anyway, but...) and have the state think it has the right to come down on me for "unfair" practices. Bullcrap.

This is yet another instance of the state violating our rights. "Boo", not "hurrah".

Not that I'm a huge fan of Microsoft. Financially it's not like it's going to hurt them or anything (I don't think?). But Windows is Microsoft's OS. Why should anyone have the right to force them to be "fair" and let users decide which browser to install? What's next... should we start forcing Microsoft to include Emacs, Vim, Notepad++, and Notepad2 because it's "unfair" that Notepad is included with such a popular OS?

You don't like that the OS doesn't include other browsers by default? Wipe it and install something else. You want to use a different browser? Fire up IE, and go to Opera.com, Mozilla.com, Google.com/Chrome, Webkit.org... nobody is preventing you from doing so.

But don't violate someone's right to decide whether or not they want to bundle your competing software with *their* software. Don't violate someone's right to sign a contract with someone else that says they agree not to bundle other browsers with the default installation of Windows as long as they sell PCs with Windows on them already.

By that argument, police officers should be charged for "impersonating a police officer", heck it's a crime if I do it and a crime is a crime no matter who commits it, right?

Umm, no. I was referring to true crimes... crimes that actually hurt people, like theft, murder, and so on. Police officers who violate rights or throw people in jail for non-crimes should be thrown in jail or should pay restitution to their victims, however... as should anyone else who does those things.

of course what prison guards do is really legalized kidnapping, so ...

Oh yes, of course that's EXACTLY what I said...

Some smartypants will say that a police officer has the duly constituted authority to act as a police officer

So? This doesn't mean they should be granted special rights. All men are created equal... right? So then why should the police be able to break into someone's home in the middle of the night, arrest him at gunpoint, and rough him up a bit without consequence? Why should the police be able to keep you from doing something on your property that's hurting no one else? Would anyone else be allowed to do that? No, so then the police shouldn't be able to, either.

Doesn't mean there shouldn't be anybody bringing down criminals, it means everyone should play by the same rules. You may NOT aggress against me unless you're trying to prevent me from aggressing against someone else. If you commit a crime against me you MUST deal with the consequences as anyone else would.

The mayor is being a dipshit, but you'll need better arguments if you plan on stopping him.

Silly me, to think that I would ever believe that throwing a mayor in jail for theft would be a good way to stop him... better to focus on the small time thieves on the streets who steal wallets from old ladies, they're easier to hate because they don't pretend to be your Messiah.

You are (incorrectly) assuming that because the government builds the roads (using money it stole from the people -- there is no justification for theft) then that *obviously* means that if the government *didn't* build the roads, we of course wouldn't have them, because who would voluntarily hand over their money to use something like a silly road? I mean, who needs roads, right?

We voluntarily (the only way to do it) pay money to our cable and internet provider, our beer distributors, our grocery stores, our electronic stores, our snow plow guy, our lawn-mowing guy, our plumber, our landlord, and so on, but of course we just couldn't pay to drive on a road, that's just silly.

I should note that in a free society you wouldn't necessarily have to pay to drive on a non-public road, anyway, just like you don't have to pay to visit and post on Slashdot -- there are plenty of alternative, indirect methods of raising income that are just as good, if not better.

... they'd go to jail.

A crime should be a crime no matter who commits it.

Much like today's large corporations (operating in a so-called "free" market), it's a well known fact that the British East India Company was granted special rights and privileges by the English/British governments.

From Wikipedia:

And so how do you solve the problem... do you go after the companies (effect) or do you go after the government (cause), which is in fact in illegitimate and unjust control of all things?