To quote Robert Heinlein:
"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." And isn't,' I added, pointing to a FREE LUNCH sign across room, 'or these drinks would cost half as much. Was reminding her that anything free costs twice as much in the long run or turns out worthless.'
If America was the free lunch you want it to be, that's how it would have turned out. Worthless.
TANSTAAFL
Friend, you're the one who wants a free lunch: you want to drive on roads, but you don't want to shoulder the full cost of your usage; you want police protection, but you refuse to assume the costs; you want defence, and all manner of government handouts, but you aren't willing to bear the actual cost yourself.
If you argue that you do, because you pay taxes, then think again. The probability is about 85% that I pay considerably more than you in taxes, yet our enjoyment of various services isn't nearly proportional to our relative tax burden. About 35% of all the cost is paid by one percent of the population, which almost certainly doesn't include you... you want a free lunch.
I'm ready, in fact eager, to pay the full cost of the things I enjoy, and to refrain from paying for things I don't want. I'll gladly pay for roads, water, trash removal, protection, travel safety, in proportion to my use of those things and commensurate with market prices. You scorn the very idea, and even more humorously, you call that a "free lunch".
Heinlein didn't write that bilge.
You obviously never read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." If you're going to sound off, you should do your homework first.
"Manuel, what is your political philosophy? ..."
"... For example, under what circumstances may the State justly place its welfare above that of a citizen?"
"Prof, as I see, are no circumstances under which State is justified in placing its welfare ahead of mine."
"Good. We have a starting point."
"Mannie," said Wyoh, "that's a most self-centered evaluation."
"I'm a most self-centered person."
...snip...
"Dear Lady, I must come to Manuel's defense. He has a correct evaluation even though he may not be able to state it. May I ask this? Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?"
"Uh. . . that's a trick question."
"It is the key question, dear Wyoming. A radical question that strikes t o the root of the whole dilemma of government. Anyone who answers honestly and a bides by all consequences knows where he stands--and what he will die for."
Wyoh frowned. "'Not moral for a member of the group--'" she said. "Professor. . . what are your political principles?"
...snip...
"... I believe in capital punishment under some circumstances. . . with this difference. I would not ask a court; I would try, condemn, execute sentence myself, and accept full responsibility."
"But--Professor, what are your political beliefs?"
"I'm a rational anarchist... I can get along with a Randite. A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame. . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world. . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure."