My newspaper came up with a fascinating story recently. In a dispatch from a place called Grants Pass, Oregon (no apostrophe visible in the dateline) a reporter wrote about a county so strapped for government funds, and so dedicated to reducing taxes that its once 22-man-strong police force, serving a population of 83,000, had been reduced to just one sheriff and one deputy and a jail capacity so limited that even in the unlikely event that a criminal should actually be apprehended by one of those remaining two lawmen he is generally just given a bench warrant and sent on his way to a neighboring jurisdiction.

Of course, there are extenuating circumstances, (Aren’t there always?) Two-thirds of the land in the county is owned by the federal government, which pays no local taxes. Its population is sparse. Eighty-three thousand in a county about the size of Rhode Island, which boasts 1.64 million, is makes it thinly settled by any definition. There are also federal timber subsidies, which underpin many local jobs. The mafia has not yet found opportunities there to attract a significant population of scam artists. But after it is all boiled down the basic facts remain. The population refuses — and has refused repeatedly in local elections — to entertain the idea of increased local taxes to support a larger police force, while at the same time making plain their expectation that someone will protect them and their property if a need arises.

The article reports that the solution, so far at least, has been two-fold : (1) applications for gun permits have gone up 49% over the past year, and (2) a volunteer group called Citizens Against Crime has taken over the duties that would formerly have been performed by the police. This arrangement involves certain hardships on the citizens — hours of patrolling, on foot and in (self-designated and self-financed) squad cars, supported by contributions from the same citizens who refuse to consent to raising taxes. This situation was described years ago by a professor at Oregon State University as a “slow-motion disaster”. And that was before the Trayvon Martin “Stand Your Ground” killing in Florida.

I can see how from a strictly local taxpayer point of view this no-taxes move is a straightforward approach to a community problem. If crime is the problem, let’s just get together and fight it. One crime at a time. We don’t need an army of trained and drilled specialists. Just give us pistols. Well and good, but from the viewpoint of the local high-school civics teacher there are wider implications. How can we use that approach to deal with potholes in the town roads — everyone grab a shovel? Or with homeless citizens — let them sleep in our cars? Or with handicapped and disabled students — let them stay home and stay out of our way? Or with trees that fall across and block our roads or destroy our houses — chain-saw and barbeque parties? Or with 911 services — everybody gets a flashing blue light and a siren for the family car?

Shall we tackle each of these things separately on an ad hoc basis only if as and when we find that they are pressing, minimally funding or professionalizing them one by one as they prove necessary and gradually re-creating, service by service and special fee by special fee, the entire integrated government we are now refusing to support by general tax revenue, until we once again find the burden too onerous and have a new fee-for-service revolt and go back to the if-as-and-when approach, in an endless cycle?

And in the meantime, what of the citizens caught in the cracks between organized democracy and vigilantism? What of the drug addict denied treatment, the thief denied an opportunity for rehabilitation, the homeowner whose TV set has been stolen or whose house has been de-roofed by a tornado? Or the (few) people who have been mugged and put in hospital despite the Good-Samaritan efforts of their neighbors?

If I lived in Grants Pass, Oregon, what would be my attitude? Would I refuse to volunteer for civilian patrols on the grounds that the whole idea is like a snake with its tail in its mouth, and incur the wrath of my neighbors who like the idea of pay-as-you-go government, or would I sign up with Citizens Against Crime and take my shift in the neighborhood patrol in the hope of keeping my schoolgirl daughter un-raped and my home un-burgled? What should I do?

I think the first thing I should do is apply to that high-school civics teacher for her advice, and maybe a quick refresher course in community building. Taxes are inescapable if we are not to go back to every-man-for-himself. Neighborhood patrols are like walking the dog : if you can afford it, you hire dog-walkers. Especially in winter. And they probably will be glad to get the job.

I could also turn to Washington for advice. Those currently in charge claim to have solutions for everything. Presumably Betsy de Vos would tell me to buy some pencils and schoolbooks and home-school my children, or enroll them in a private school if I hit the lottery. Paul Ryan would advise me to lay in a supply of Band Aids and aspirin and learn to put up with a little chronic pain, in the bones as well as in the wallet. Mitch McConnell would advise me to invest in bitcoins and hope they didn’t evaporate before it came to the time for me to retire. Jeff Sessions would assure me that crime would disappear along with the last Mexican and Muslim kicked off the back porch. What Donald Trump would say to the prospect of abandoning tax-supported government might be more complicated. He would want reassurance that he could keep all the subsidies he has been given over the years, as well as his mortgage and interest tax deductions and his exemption from the Constitution’s emoluments clause — all of which require a strong government and a solidly Republican Supreme Court, not to speak of reliable Secret Service protection. Somehow I don’t think these gentlemen would eagerly adopt Grants Pass’s solutions when it came time to do away with their official salaries and access to PAC-inflated slush funds and free airplane flights in favor of an every-man-for-himself society.

Of course I could be wrong.