He lives all by himself alone. He uses no infrastructure. He needs no services. He pays for everything he needs by himself. His well-being has nothing to do with the general stability of the society around him.

He's not interested in the mechanisms that administer justice because no one has ever committed a crime that has touched him or any member of his family.

His insurance rates and property values have nothing to do with public safety.

Not.

You're right about the fact that many things that tax dollars are spent on are wasteful. We never did take back the cost of the savings and loan debacle out of the hides of the people who caused it. We gave them a tax break instead. We underwrite large corporations and agribusinesses who don't need it. Our upper-level officials, elected and appointed, may not be paid the wages of millionaires, but the perks, oh my!

Yet, when the revenue is "given back", what gets the ax? You know and I know: it's the services least likely to be important to the people with money. Things like parks (open to all), libraries (where the poor go when they want something to read), police and fire departments (especially in the poorer parts of a community), aid to the indigent (why don't they all get jobs?), and less visible infrastructure such as public health programs and bridge maintenance. Are they eating macaroni and cheese in the Congressional dining room? Privilege knows how to protect itself.

Elected privilege also knows how to get itself re-elected. How else do you explain the byzantine new drug bill for the elderly? It sure looks like it's buying votes from the old folks, though they are turning out to be somewhat smarter than expected, but what it really does is ensure a healthy dose of Jacksonian gratitude from the drug companies.

I don't care about Mr. Lileks's stairs. But I wonder, if they catch fire, will he expect the fire company to come put them out? Will they bill him afterwards?