Yep. If you were up late on 10-26, diving into news stories, you might have caught this little gem. Already, Conspirators have discussed whether there is really an ethical justification for the existence of government protection services. The principled find the idea of forcing people to pay for their own protection to be unacceptable. Now it seems that even the consequencialists out there can begin to see that the entire paradigm of government protection services is simply unworkable. The CA Wildfires were first thought to be naturally occurring phenomena, which supply NO justification for government involvement. Government is not supposed to protect people from naturally occurring phenomena. But historically, governments based on the Lockean theory of natural rights support the idea that if a HUMAN or group of HUMANS are threatening one's life or property, there is a rationale for government involvement for the protection of life and/or property. This is not ethically or philosophically sound. No one can argue that it is ethical to force someone to pay for his own protection. How much is enough? What if someone doesn't want to pay? Where should the aggregated cash be spent, in the government sphere?

If the CA fires were arson, this allows us to look at the inefficient and immoral paradigm that government should protect people from other people. The only way government can do that is by taking property from people. The amounts always vary, the principle of forced payment is immoral, and the consequences are wasteful. Check out the new story about FEMA, and how FEMA officials FAKED a news conference about the fires! Here is ye olde link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21490838/