Your argument is in the wrong context -> it’s invalid -> shot down.

You’re simply denying things you don’t like and pretend to be winning something somewhere. Go away

You’re gonna sit there on your phone trying to decide which fire service to use while your house is literally burning down?

Why “trying to decide”? One may have some kind of subscription etc. Also finding one quickly, like with taxi and food delivery services, is a demand to be filled. Markets and such.

What about people who rent? It’s not their own private property, are they supposed to pay for the whole building being saved? Does it get put on the landlord? He never consented to having his building saved, his tenants just called the fire station when a fire started. Are the tenants supposed to contact their landlord first so that he can properly consent to having a fire station save his property?

It seems you haven’t read the paragraph about separation.

Well other than now having to pay for double the amount of infrastructure, you now also probably have people who own and profit off the stations, which introduces every normal market pressure, positive and corrupting.

You’ll pay less, that’s for sure, ask anyone who’ve worked with state services and big organizations. At their job, I mean. I have.

“Pay our massive fee or your house burns down” certainly sounds coercive. You’ve also not established anything to guarantee that a fire station doesn’t develop a monopoly.

It seems you haven’t read the paragraph about separation.

If your solution to serious and urgent emergencies like “Oh my god, my house is on fire” or “Oh my god, I’m having a heart attack” is several paragraphs long, you’ve not actually developed a solution, just a hypothetical which shows painfully obviously why we stopped running society like this millenia ago.

It seems you haven’t read the paragraph about separation. Which is one (1) paragraph, not several. Also no, it doesn’t show anything, because you haven’t read it and can’t make such claims.

The paragraph about separation:

This all is unimportant, though, since it ignores the fact that something like a state fire service, only one separate from police, military and others and with administration formed separately from them is still allowable for ancap. Where membership would be like citizenship in our world, and a member gets the service on usual conditions (but pays something like taxes), while a non-member will pay a lot that one time. It’s similar to state healthcare being free for citizens, but not for foreign nationals in some countries.

Now what I don’t understand is why you all refuse to read before commenting.