>None of these things existed before government >control/influence/involvement? That isn't true.

This is true! None of these things existed in service of anyone but those with or power/wealth. The only way to get away from needing these services is to live in a tribal society where everyone works as a collective for survival. At that point, you no longer have an inalienable rights save for those that you can earn for yourself at the cost or your own blood.

>And finally, the amounts of my taxes that goes to those things I
>actually use is dwarfed by that which I will either never see benefit
>from (social security/medicare/medicaid/etc.) or which I don't
>support (foreign >aid/wars on foreign soil/etc.

I love how arrogant you are. You may not be in need of any of these services now, however, times change as do situations. What you don't need now you may be thanking God for existing later.

>How about I pay for the services I use. That seems fair. That seems
>to be how businesses get by.

I'm going to say that those who are in need of these services you do not want to pay for are dependants in one capacity or another. Whether they're elderly, or disabled. Please refrain from making an anecdote about your cousin who scams social insurance for beer money.

>http://www.mises.org/story/1121

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth

This is the case of a tribal society, with small communities. Human beings cease to be able to function as a community above certain population levels. This also presupposes that the society in question is one with uniform ethics, values, wealth, and religion.

>Police protection is a farce. I can protect myself much better than
>the police can or would. It seems to me that the very wealthy already
>hire private protection (Hi Vlad!) and that the poor wouldn't exactly >consider the police their best friends.

Once again, you are so very arrogant. You think you can take on the world, don't you? Go live somewhere that doesn't have the things you claim you don't need, and see how well you carve out your comfortable living you've got going for you. I suggest finding a large source of income, many weapons, and a good number of well trained mercenaries before attempting this.

>National defense, sure. I would argue that police forces have been
>oppressive and ineffective since the beginning of time and have
>almost always been created for that purpose.

This I agree with. However, violent crime takes a steep nosedive when a population is capable of defending themselves, themselves. For example, nations with mandatory conscription. Oh wait, you oppose conscription because it presupposes that the gov't owns your Life.