3 ms·
Sure, you could charge people directly for services. Want school? Pay for school tuition. Want roads? Pay the toll. Want fire service? Pay for fire subscript
by notch898a 4y ago
Sure, you could charge people directly for services.
Want school? Pay for school tuition.
Want roads? Pay the toll.
Want fire service? Pay for fire subscription.
etc.
I'd be happy to live in such community but others want men with guns to come toss them out of their house if they don't have the money for the extra services. To me that sounds worse but to each their own.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- zamnos 4y agoWould you really though?That sounds like you'd just get nickle and dimed to death. Look at what happened with streaming services. It used to just be Netflix, but now that's but one service of many. So some people pay $100/month to get all the services, other people pick and choose, others have moved back to torrenting media. I dunno about you but it seems like things were better as a viewer when it was just Netflix and Hulu. And that's just for watching movies and tv. I can't imagine what it would be like if it was for critical things like the police. Actually, wouldn't a police subscription devolve with the existence of rival police departments, and then they'd actually fight with each other instead of chasing criminals? Or they'd come by your house and demand payment for the police and unless you paid, a thief might just happen to know your house was unprotected and burgle your house? The incentives under that system seem all sorts of perverse. Fire subscription seems like it would only be workable in a barely suburban or actually rural environment, where your house burning down won't also catch your neighbor's house on fire. Anything more dense and the whole block would go up in flames, including your house, if one of your neighbors didn't pay and the fire department didn't immediately extinguish the fire in their house.