[orf]

It's rather ridiculous to argue that point. None of those could or should be ran on a 'voluntry' basis in today's society.

Consider more rural areas, where there are less people to make these donations, and more roads are needed. Is it ok to say "pay for your own roads" when it unfairly shoulders them with the largest burden? It will end up with lower income rural areas having crappy or no roads. Same for all the others you listed, bar military. Also, who pays for the highways?

Having a justice system depend on donations from the populace is kind of a huge issue with impartiality.

Fyi, England used to effectively do what you suggest pre ~1700. It didn't work out well from a justice, education or infrastructure angle until the state got involved.

[flexie]

I don't suggest that. I think it would be silly not to cover those items through taxes. My post is an answer to the guy above who suggests that healthcare shouldn't be paid by taxes because that's not voluntary. Then I point out that with the same reasoning you could argue that primary education or secondary education shouldn't be paid through taxes.

I think it works very well to pay all those things through taxes.

[pgeorgi]

> Fyi, England used to effectively do what you suggest pre ~1700. It didn't work out well from a justice, education or infrastructure angle until the state got involved.

Same can be said about health care, at least in countries that (unlike Post-Thatcher UK) don't actively try to ruin their public health system.