Mandatory public service is a scam. Elections won't fix this.

Societies benefit from public services in many ways: firemen can extinguish our fires, roads get us to Rome, Congress drafts us to Viet-Nam, EBT makes us a sandwich, Medicare vaccinates us against autism, schools teach us the world was made by an explosion & c.

When an individual wishes to take a train, (s)he enters a binding contract with the railroad company, participates in the compensation of their efforts and upkeep of the railroad system, maybe agrees to a certain code of conduct while on board, and that's great.
Private service in all its glory makes for a great service comparison.

The term public service should also refer to an opportunity, not to an obligatory use of the public's time and resources, not to a contract someone signs for you.

To pre-emptively answer the obvious question "where to draw the line": that's where the line is: if it doesn't affect others, it's not mandatory.
Trash collection subscription is mandatory for dwellings smaller than a dozen acres for its effects on others if left uncollected, for instance. Private companies do this now anyway.

Those who wish to stay out of trains don't have to deal with railroad companies.
Why not so with pharmaceutical companies?

In a true democracy, services are offered to the public, who have the power to accept or decline these opportunities as individuals: I'm glad the firetruck is on call and will happily pay them a flat tribute yearly in case some day I or my neighbour need their assistance, so in paying local public services I would be glad to check that box.
If I don't, and my house burns, tough #, but still my call to make.

I'm glad we have a defence system in case Canada invades, so I'll pay for the servicemen's soup and costume and gun with gratitude so long as they stay here to constitutionally defend us against enemies foreign and domestic instead of serving oil companies abroad so I'll be glad to personally check that national defence box too and serve if there's a lack of personnel.

How come we can decide what we get from MCDonald's but not from Sam?
"Here's your burger, and this shoe you did not order is an additional 9$99"

Opportunity to decline an offer of public service doesn't preclude large gains from deepening a reserve that helps the needy, but it does effect the way public services are operated. Why would people refuse to aid the poor, when it's the ultimate social status trophy?

I do believe I can choose which services I'm sponsoring, and if my neighbour believes in getting their tap water or electricity from another source than the grid, who am I so force them into a contract with my own supplier? That would be an insane monopoly yet it's the current paradigm of public services.

If I'm dying of lung cancer because I smoke cigars every day and I don't believe in hospitals enough to have checked that box that year, tough # for me, and if I did check that box, maybe the doc will save my sorry lungs but in either case it's my decision to make to either subscribe or decline that service.
If I decline smallpox vaccination, and I die of smallpox, it's none of your business since you're vaccinated against smallpox and therefore cannot be infected, and if you're not you chose as I did to take that chance.

Say for instance I don't feel protected by the police: why participate in their upkeep or benefit from their services?
I don't call them when I'm scared or when someone breaks my windows: it is a service I as a part of the public don't wish to purchase.
If I choose that option, tough # if I get killed by rabid protesters or killer bees or the new thing, but I'll take my chances.

Say I like my health to be handled by my local non affiliated shaman, and the freeway system is too expensive, noisy, polluty and lame for my taste: why should I participate in the upkeep of those services?

What if my personal plan for when Katrina hits is to not go to FEMA for help but rather my hermit buddy on the mountain, why should I subscribe to that service?
Again if I knock on FEMA's door in a time of need, they won't have a room for me if I didn't check that box but it doesn't affect you and thus is my choice to make.

If I buy a roadcar I'll buy the freeway pass that goes with it, or "driver's permit" or what have you. I happen to prefer trains.
If I want pills or surgery I'll subscribe to govt medical coverage programs.
If I want the FDA's opinion of what is good to eat I'll pay for it.
If I want to procreate and have my offspring educated by others I'll pay for it, and for those who say everyone should participate in public school costs: no. There are already way too many people, if you can't care for the ones you make, don't make them for their own sake don't make them because they would live the worst kind of life and further overcrowd everything simultaneously.
Not saying the poor shouldn't have kids: saying parents are responsible for their kids whether or not they're poor.

A country's national debt is caused by gov. spending, exclusively.

What if the country's democratic rulers, aka everybody, reduce that spending by actually choosing what services they subscribe to?

This could cut some gov. jobs, if for instance less people feel the need to purchase an ATF or TSA subscription, but is the opposite worth the debt, and the undemocratic process of mandatory subscription to public service?
If 20% of people choose to subscribe to TSA in case someone crashes the airbus with a water bottle, then 20% of commercial flights would be served by the TSA prior to boarding => democracy.

I know I wouldn't personally subscribe to the surveillance services: if I ever need to read Hillary Clinton's email I'll have to either hack it or pay someone to do it but frankly the correspondence of others is none of my business.
If a terrorist puts his plans up on twitter I won't know about it and am fully prepared to deal with that.

I'm not sure I want to subscribe to the prison system, which enslaves people who mostly smoke pot or don't pay enough public services, and feeds the tiny fraction of criminals actually in there: I'll gladly participate in the costs of sending violent criminals to a small island to isolate them from society, and that seems a lot less costly and insane to me.

Maybe less people would subscribe to social security if it wasn't done for them, and each adult would have to deal with the consequences of that choice if they ever need social security, but isn't this what being an adult is about?
Some people would take that chance and I believe we all have a right to.

Are there really a significant portion of us who wouldn't subscribe to social services, which cost less than a quarter of public spending anyway? If so I do respect their right to make that choice and deal with its personal consequences if any.

At least the democracy would mean something, the govt spending would be less insane and nobody would be served things they don't order, a logical anomaly that seems to take place more and more.

Am I wrong about this?

Who feels all public services need to be mandatory and why?

Congrats to you. You have basically described in , in simple terms , a Libertarian point of view. If I am not hurting anyone , what the Sheol should anyone care what I do ?

a reply to: wisvol

I am also a libertarian, essentially.

However, you cannot pick and choose as an individual in some situations.

A fire in a city that could spread and harm others - reasonable to say this should be put out. Reasonable to say this is something everyone should have to pay for, if they live in the city close to others, etc.

Pretty much everything you talk about... People could pick and choose if they owned their own land.

No, you can't drill 4 million water wells in a big city regardless of the will of the people. No, you can't tear the streets up every time a single person in a huge neighborhood wants water from another area.

Then again, I definitely advocate for smaller cities, people spreading out. Bunching people up too much creates more crime, more tension, worse pollution, creates extremists and extreme situations, furthers entitlement, taxation, etc.

Spreading out would solve soooooo much, and give us a reasonable chance to choose which services we want to be a part of. Living in a city, it wouldn't be realistic.

a reply to: deadlyhope

Living a city, the constraints of society are more likely to involve public services that country living does not.

However, the question remains: do all public services as provided today seem inherently mandatory to you?

edit:

Most importantly, whether or not a libertarian president is ever in office, should subscription to services not depend on the subscriber?
Granted, many apartment dwellers would almost automatically choose to opt in an aggregated plumbing model, but does that change the nature of the fact that people are in full authority of their contract making ability and therefore aren't liable to be contracted without consent? How is this not the case in a democratic country?

a reply to: wisvol

You lose rights when you rent, when you are on someone else's property, when you are on someone else's website. You don't have to rent that apartment. You don't have to surf Ats. Here, you follow a terms of agreement - we don't have freedom of speech here, we follow another's code. It's not unreasonable. You're bound to sign a contract if you rent somewhere - which is also not unreasonable in my opinion. You're not forced into anything, but you actually sign for what you are willing to abide by, based on the desires of the actual owners of the building.

If you own land, your house, etc - I think you should be able to make more choices, of course this should be obvious. The point I'm making is you can be as much an individual you want, but dont try to apply that thinking when others are involved. It's reasonable to be pulled over if you're driving crazily in the city. It's not reasonable for cops to ever come on your private property without a dang good reason.

If you live in the city, use the city, etc - it's reasonable to have to pay for certain services like traffic cops, and have to abide by different rules and regulations. All this freedom you're mentioning should be able to be applied to individuals with their own property that don't have debt to a bank.

Don't live on another mans Land or in his building. Make your own website. Don't owe money to the bank. Live away from the city - you can be exactly as free as you want, but shouldn't be able to intrude on a landlords right to maintain his own property and plumbing just the way he wants to. He owns the place, not you.. You know?

a reply to: wisvol

do all public services as provided today seem inherently mandatory to you?

The big Elephant in the room you missed is the coinage of money or fiat money. Kennedy tried to reclaim the minting of a silver based dollar; it didn't end well for him. All those services you mentioned that should be voluntarily entered into amount to peanuts in the bigger scheme of things.

Banish fiat money banish unbalanced government spending banish wars for profit and trillions will appear for the common good of society.

a reply to: deadlyhope

I have lived in the USA on my own acres and self built home on the mountain, with no bank, no contract of any kind, and still none of these elemental freedoms applied.

Good analogy as to the website, and we certainly did accept a set of conditions to write here: contractual obligations are obligations.

If you live in the city, use the city, etc - it's reasonable to have to pay for certain services like traffic cops, and have to abide by different rules and regulations. All this freedom you're mentioning should be able to be applied to individuals with their own property that don't have debt to a bank.

Living in the city does not mean you contract to use the traffic system necessarily.

I agree that this freedom I'm mentioning should be able to be applied to individuals, not only who are free of debt, but all those who are not from their own will in a contract to do otherwise.

My question is why is it not so?