&gt; If you read my response above you would see that markets do not merely allow shoplifters to get away with it<p>Please. Explain.<p>Bob shoplift from a store. How does the insurance company stop him from shoplifing from the store again?<p>A Police Officer puts him in Jail. He spends some time thinking about it and eventually decides shoplifting isn&#x27;t worth jailtime.<p>But private 3rd party citizens do NOT have the ability to use force on others. And that&#x27;s a good thing.<p>Without the Police acting as a stick, you simply don&#x27;t have a deterrence. Yes, Walmart hires greeters and purchases insurance policies against shoplifting. That doesn&#x27;t stop the shoplifters I see shuffling through Walmart. If a Walmart greeter starts to confront a shoplifter, they just say &quot;lol nope&quot; and leave.<p>An Officer threating them with jail? That&#x27;s something that gets a shoplifter&#x27;s attention.<p>&gt; So you admit that what you were describing was a red herring and not a market failure.<p>I&#x27;m saying that the County is using taxes to pay for the Dump (and similarly, raising a &quot;bag tax&quot; to discourage the use of plastic bags is a good thing). And according to you anarcho-capitalists, you guys typically consider the forceful removal of money from the private citizenry to be immoral.<p>I&#x27;m defending the use of taxes to solve this market failure. Because taxes are NOT a function of a free-market economy. You should know the basics of your own argument dude.<p>If you don&#x27;t think raising taxes is a problem, then you have no qualms or counter-arguments from me. I&#x27;m presuming a few things about your argument because I&#x27;ve heard this philosophy many times before. I feel like cutting to the chase.<p>So, are you for or against taxes? I assume you&#x27;re against, which is why I&#x27;m stating my arguments in this way.