View Full Version : Contra free market absolutism
For those who hold absolute or near-absolute free market ideology (if you idolize Ayn Rand (http://halrager.org/WordPress/the-other-of-course-involves-orcs/), you're in the club), this would be an interesting test case.
Town offers fire service on a pay-as-you-go basis. Pony up an annual $75, you get firefighters. Fail to pay and there is no government coercion, no fee, no fines, no repercussion, but you also get no protection. This would be the ultimate in free market government, yes? A libertarian's dream, yes?
Of course a family failed to pay, and of course their house burned down, and of course the firefighters stood around and watched.
Two questions:
Does this demonstrate libertarianism empirically? If not, why not?
If you support this policy, could you perhaps justify how the (pointless) loss of a home is balanced out by the extra freedom? 'Cause it seems to this lemur like it's an obvious net loss for the community.
Full article (http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html) below spoil.
Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground
OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.
A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.
The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.
Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.
The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.
This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.
Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
Because of that, not much is left of Cranick's house.
They called 911 several times, and initially the South Fulton Fire Department would not come.
The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.
"When I called I told them that. My grandson had already called there and he thought that when I got here I could get something done, I couldn't," Paulette Cranick.
It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.
We asked him why.
He wouldn't talk to us and called police to have us escorted off the property. Police never came but firefighters quickly left the scene. Meanwhile, the Cranick home continued to burn.
We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception.
"Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't," Mayor David Crocker said.
Friends and neighbors said it's a cruel and dangerous city policy but the Cranicks don't blame the firefighters themselves. They blame the people in charge.
"They're doing their job," Paulette Cranick said of the firefighters. "They're doing what they are told to do. It's not their fault."
To give you an idea of just how intense the feelings got in this situation, soon after the fire department returned to the station, the Obion County Sheriff's Department said someone went there and assaulted one of the firefighters.
rory_20_uk
10-05-2010, 17:04
Beats the system we have here. People living on a river's flood plain can choose to get insurance or not.
Those that chose not to get any then whinged to the government when there was a flood. Government then paid for their homes to be repaired...
$75 is not a lot of money. Of course $75 is a lot less than it costs to get the full service as most of the time it's not required. These people chose not to get it as I imagine they thought it was a waste of their money. Unsurprisingly, rather than blaming themselves for their irresponsible behaviour they take it out on those that told them clearly that no dough = no show. I imagine they thought they'd turn up in any case.
The loss of one home is a loss to the community. But now the community has a clear example of what happens when they take no responsibility for their own actions - I'm sure anyone else trying to shirk the cost has radically altered their priorities.
Just like children, some people won't learn until the disaster happens.
~:smoking:
Tellos Athenaios
10-05-2010, 17:07
I don't comprehend parts of the USA at times like these.
But here's another question: traditionally firefighting is one of those things in which a person must assist. Failing to do so is, traditionally, a felony. These laws were put into place for self-explanatory reasons; similar to laws which make failure to render aid a felony as well.
So here's what I cannot fathom. How come a city council is allowed to pull that kind of stunt? Where's proper oversight when you need it? And how come that people would choose to go along with that in the first place? What kind of mentality is that?
Sasaki Kojiro
10-05-2010, 17:22
It's a pretty funny story.
But the obvious problems in this case are that fire spreads (to the neighbors fields) and that it makes the firefighters a target (one was attacked). Better to just impose the $75 fee in this case.
I'd be more curious if, when deciding to implement the pay-for-coverage scheme, the town fathers reduced taxes elsewhere to account for it.
I read about this yesterday....
Were I a firefighter on the scene, I don't know if I could have stood on the sidelines and did nothing. However, I do not fault them on bit for doing so. The homeowner in question was well aware of the consequences of his decision ahead of time- $75 is a nominal fee when you consider the alternative. He has no right to complain now about the consequences of his deliberate decision earlier.
Had the firefighters helped, or even accepted his offer of on the spot payment of the fee, they would have completely undercut the reason for anyone to pay the $75. After this, I bet you'll find very few people who don't pay for their firefighters in that community.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-05-2010, 17:36
I second X-man.
gaelic cowboy
10-05-2010, 17:45
The Cranicks told 9-1-1 they would pay firefighters, whatever the cost, to stop the fire before it spread to their house.
If he offered to pay to put it out then they should have responded simple credit card over the phone should have been enough. This is stupid they let the house go up in flames to force others to pay up but would not accept payment when offered.
Strike For The South
10-05-2010, 18:18
This would've never happened in Europe.
They probably would've given the guy free lunch to.
Can I move back to England?
Is portsmouth still as my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandad left it?
gaelic cowboy
10-05-2010, 19:13
I wonder if the same people would have advocated that a factory be allowed to burn down even if they offered to pay the fee over the phone same as Mr Cranick.
If he offered to pay to put it out then they should have responded simple credit card over the phone should have been enough. This is stupid they let the house go up in flames to force others to pay up but would not accept payment when offered.
It is an annual fee, so they probably haven't paid for a few years. Also, it is there to pay the wages of the firefighters, etc, while they are on stand-by as well.
It is why it is a bad system, especially when stupid people are involved.
gaelic cowboy
10-05-2010, 19:56
It is an annual fee, so they probably haven't paid for a few years. Also, it is there to pay the wages of the firefighters, etc, while they are on stand-by as well.
It is why it is a bad system, especially when stupid people are involved.
Then charge a late fee as well I don't see the problem here really.
If I moved there and my check had not cleared the bank cos it was the weekend would they sit on my lawn till the bank contacted them it seems they would.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-05-2010, 20:37
Then charge a late fee as well I don't see the problem here really.
If I moved there and my check had not cleared the bank cos it was the weekend would they sit on my lawn till the bank contacted them it seems they would.
Not a bad idea. If they authorize it ex post facto, as in the above example, they should have to pay back premiums with interest (from start of program to present) plus fee for service for the current episode.
As it is, upon discovering that the owner's failed to pay the normal fee for fire protection services, it is distinctly likely that they will have voided BOTH their homeowners property & casualty insurance as well as their mortgage protection insurance.
Hosakawa Tito
10-05-2010, 23:04
I read about this yesterday....
Were I a firefighter on the scene, I don't know if I could have stood on the sidelines and did nothing. However, I do not fault them on bit for doing so. The homeowner in question was well aware of the consequences of his decision ahead of time- $75 is a nominal fee when you consider the alternative. He has no right to complain now about the consequences of his deliberate decision earlier.
Had the firefighters helped, or even accepted his offer of on the spot payment of the fee, they would have completely undercut the reason for anyone to pay the $75. After this, I bet you'll find very few people who don't pay for their firefighters in that community.
Bingo. $75 probably wouldn't cover the fuel for the fire truck. It's unfortunate, but they chose option B of the "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later" plan.
Not a bad idea. If they authorize it ex post facto, as in the above example, they should have to pay back premiums with interest (from start of program to present) plus fee for service for the current episode.
As it is, upon discovering that the owner's failed to pay the normal fee for fire protection services, it is distinctly likely that they will have voided BOTH their homeowners property & casualty insurance as well as their mortgage protection insurance.
They should pay the full cost to fight the fire, not just back premiums + a fee. If they were unwilling to spend a paltry $75/year for fire protection I doubt they paid for a homeowners insurance policy either so the contents are a complete loss as well. If one can't afford $6.25 a month *a six pack fer christsakes* then maybe they should rent. Bet they had satellite tv, cell phones, etc... but no money to protect it all from a fire. Foolish people need to get their priorities straight. It's a hard lesson, but at least no one got hurt.
Ironside
10-05-2010, 23:58
I read about this yesterday....
Were I a firefighter on the scene, I don't know if I could have stood on the sidelines and did nothing. However, I do not fault them on bit for doing so. The homeowner in question was well aware of the consequences of his decision ahead of time- $75 is a nominal fee when you consider the alternative. He has no right to complain now about the consequences of his deliberate decision earlier.
Had the firefighters helped, or even accepted his offer of on the spot payment of the fee, they would have completely undercut the reason for anyone to pay the $75. After this, I bet you'll find very few people who don't pay for their firefighters in that community.
Considering Lemur's headline, I think the question is more about having the stupid system there in the first place, in the name of free market.
All people will de facto pay it, thus becoming a tax instead of an insurance. Second, keeping a building on fire is stupid and dangerous. I'm sure that the neighbour is enjoying the water damage from the fire department keeping the fire from spreading to his house... The fire department paying the deductible is pretty much a given. Sueing possibillities?
And during very bad conditions, the fire will spread.
I think it's hilarious, and yes, I would have watched it as a firefighter, too, with a big grin on my face.
Maybe I'm not firefighter material but if someone ids unwilling to pay my wages for years and then whines once he needs me, he needs to learna lesson.
He gambled and he lost as this passage clearly shows:
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
Don Corleone
10-06-2010, 00:53
Considering Lemur's headline, I think the question is more about having the stupid system there in the first place, in the name of free market.
All people will de facto pay it, thus becoming a tax instead of an insurance. Second, keeping a building on fire is stupid and dangerous. I'm sure that the neighbour is enjoying the water damage from the fire department keeping the fire from spreading to his house... The fire department paying the deductible is pretty much a given. Sueing possibillities?
And during very bad conditions, the fire will spread.
This isn't exactly absolute free-market liberalism at work. This is an insurance raquet with consequences. True market liberalism would be when you need the fire company, you dial 911, and you authorize them to bill you for whatever the going rate for putting the fire out.
Due to the extended bailouts and the god awful miserable mess both parties seem to make of our finances, I'm moving into some foreign ground...
You cannot know you truly hold free market liberalism to be the superior system until you have considered the alternatives. Clearly, the mish-mash of mercantilism & croneyism that passes for capitalism is no longer working in this country. If it was, we wouldn't be giving Citibank $20Billion, for them to turn around and foreclose on homeowners and pay their executives 10s of millions in bonuses.
I know this is going to get a lot of ridicule and skepticism, but I am honestly, seriously considering whether a collectivist Trotskist command economy isn't in order. I know, I know, drastic reversal from my usual philosophical opines, but one thing I've learned in the past 3-4 years... don't discount the capability for corruption of a representative republic coupled with croney-capitalism.
Whatever Adam Smith had in mind, we ain't it...
This would've never happened in Europe.
They probably would've given the guy free lunch to.
Can I move back to England?
Is portsmouth still as my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandad left it?
Well, actually back than Portsmouth might have had a similar system. In London at least you also had to pay one of the fire fighter firm (there were several not sure if they all were private) so you would get a sign on your house saying that you paid. If you had one of those any fire fighter firm that responded would extinguish the fire, didn't matter if you actually paid them. If you didn't the would only protect surrounding houses that had paid up front. That's at least what the London walks guide said.
So no real new scheme, making it no less stupid.
Louis VI the Fat
10-06-2010, 01:40
This all works in the countryside, with individual houses seperated by big plots of nothing.
In a city, perhaps in Europe or Japan period, there are other considerations. I think the largest block I've lived in had some 200 people living in it. So an appartment there can not burn down, everybody has a stake in each other's wellbeing. Regardless of whether the tenants paid taxes or not, the firefighters must save their house.
Likewise, there must be extensive fire prevention regulation. And if my neighbour below me refuses to obey safety these regulations, we must kick his door in and make the necessary changes to his house for him.
This would've never happened in Europe.
They probably would've given the guy free lunch to.
Can I move back to England?
Is portsmouth still as my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandad left it?
Portsmouth is pretty much the same. Full of drunks and tarts. But the roads are now tarmac.
I can't help but feel that this is a local politician's way of claiming to have lowered taxes by making essential services an optional extra. Seems a rather shabby thing to do. Not as shabby as watching a house burn down though. At least the fire fighters don't get paid per job!
Bet they had satellite tv, cell phones, etc...
Considering that cell phones have been ubiquitous for over a decade and can be had for less than $30, they probably did. :juggle2:
Isn't there a must-act clausule when it comes to firecontrol or provide medical aid, put out the fire and send them the bill. Dire consequences for the freerider, but not inhuman. People who say that libertarism is replacing one government with another are right, but it's bottem up not top down, I'd call it more specifically tailored system. No system can survive without compassion though, an upyours when someones house is burning down is just cruel.
PanzerJaeger
10-06-2010, 14:11
This all works in the countryside, with individual houses seperated by big plots of nothing.
Yes, this is a great program for rural communities that would not work in a densely packed urban environment. The fact that one house has burned down does not challenge the system (in fact, it probably strengthens it via example), and I hardly think this is a big net loss for the community. These people did not seem interested and/or intelligent enough in being upstanding members of it to begin with.
"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick.
:shame:
Living in communist Europe and all that, I'm all for more freedom, but I still believe that, when it comes to certain issues, the government needs to take the responsibility of protecting people against their own stupidity.
Not willing to pay for firefighters is one of them. Make it a tax and protect everybody. If a government isn't even willing to do that, then why the :daisy: do we need governments for in the first place. Firefighting is a government service that is as essential as let's say the police. Some things simply need to be provided by a government and there simply needs to be some form of taxes to pay for that.
Yes, these people are complete morons. They're as moronic as their local authority is irresponsible.
The more I think about it, the more I'm getting convinced that the muppet who came up with the idea of offering fire service on a pay-as-you-go basis should be burned at the stake, while the firefighters are standing around and watching.
gaelic cowboy
10-06-2010, 14:42
Just imagine the :daisy:storm if there had been someone in the house by accident and it was not discovered till after it burned down. The whole system would have been brought into disrepute the firefighters would have been crucified for sitting watching it burn.
What if they had chemicals or explosives inside would they just let it burn cos they had not paid up if the answer is yes they are CRAZY and if it is no then clearly this lark really was just a stunt by local politicians.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-06-2010, 14:51
This does seem like one of the rare situations where paternalism is justifiable.
Whatever Adam Smith had in mind, we ain't it...
Fair point, indeed. And I always knew you were a clost Trotskyite.
What I find fascinating is that the more ideologically pure Randian (http://authormichaelprescott.blogspot.com/2005/03/was-ayn-rand-evil.html) Orgahs don't even see a need to defend the policy or justify it. Rather, by pointing out that the homeowners are (most likely) irresponsible and stupid, they're content to shrug and walk away whistling.
Strike For The South
10-06-2010, 16:08
Fair point, indeed. And I always knew you were a clost Trotskyite.
What I find fascinating is that the more ideologically pure Randian (http://authormichaelprescott.blogspot.com/2005/03/was-ayn-rand-evil.html) Orgahs don't even see a need to defend the policy or justify it. Rather, by pointing out that the homeowners are (most likely) irresponsible and stupid, they're content to shrug and walk away whistling.
Why there be a need to justify something that is none of there buisness?
I would assume they treat this man not paying his FFs the same as someone buying 100,000,000 hot pockets. There is no need to justify an action which they or the gubment has no purview over
I know this is going to get a lot of ridicule and skepticism, but I am honestly, seriously considering whether a collectivist Trotskist command economy isn't in order. I know, I know, drastic reversal from my usual philosophical opines, but one thing I've learned in the past 3-4 years... don't discount the capability for corruption of a representative republic coupled with croney-capitalism.
Whatever Adam Smith had in mind, we ain't it...
I didn't beat the yellow reds to hell just to have young whippersnappers like come and propagate craziness :angry:
gaelic cowboy
10-06-2010, 16:10
Fair point, indeed. And I always knew you were a clost Trotskyite.
What I find fascinating is that the more ideologically pure Randian (http://authormichaelprescott.blogspot.com/2005/03/was-ayn-rand-evil.html) Orgahs don't even see a need to defend the policy or justify it. Rather, by pointing out that the homeowners are (most likely) irresponsible and stupid, they're content to shrug and walk away whistling.
Possibly because Ann Rand is a toxic brand now since Greenspan her first disciple left all his finacial toxic waste around the place.
I mean honestly this idiot Rand did not even believe that fraud should be policed a failing Greenspan is said to have shared.
Vladimir
10-06-2010, 16:35
Living in communist Europe and all that, I'm all for more freedom, but I still believe that, when it comes to certain issues, the government needs to take the responsibility of protecting people against their own stupidity.
Not willing to pay for firefighters is one of them. Make it a tax and protect everybody. If a government isn't even willing to do that, then why the :daisy: do we need governments for in the first place. Firefighting is a government service that is as essential as let's say the police. Some things simply need to be provided by a government and there simply needs to be some form of taxes to pay for that.
Yes, these people are complete morons. They're as moronic as their local authority is irresponsible.
The more I think about it, the more I'm getting convinced that the muppet who came up with the idea of offering fire service on a pay-as-you-go basis should be burned at the stake, while the firefighters are standing around and watching.
As much as I love to see stupid people suffer, I agree with the above. Mostly because stupidity is a contagion which negatively affects others. Fire coverage should not be a pay-for-service scheme. Even a house in the country deserves fire protection because it can set the woods ablaze. That's why we have volunteer fire departments. They won't get there in time to save your house, but they will save the houses of others.
gaelic cowboy
10-06-2010, 16:52
As much as I love to see stupid people suffer, I agree with the above. Mostly because stupidity is a contagion which negatively affects others. Fire coverage should not be a pay-for-service scheme. Even a house in the country deserves fire protection because it can set the woods ablaze. That's why we have volunteer fire departments. They won't get there in time to save your house, but they will save the houses of others.
Seconded
This Ballymagash crowd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish_pump_politics#Parochialism_in_politics) would stopped my vaccination in school thereby endangering other people.
What a bunch of nanny-sate-adoring sissy-whining. :no:
They should privertize the fire fighters and the police so they become more effective due to competishun and being paid per job. Obviously those government controlled firefighters are useless, they just stood there and watched the house burn down. And that's despite the government acting in a most professional way by not accepting the payoff the houseowner offered them in the end.
Those silly communerist europeens without cojones would have accepted the money and put out the fire, leading to a corrupt government helping leeches out and the leech not learning his lesson.
Of course you have to think if there had been a UFO inside the house it could have lead to an interstellar war with a huge alien invasion so it was a little bit irresponsible as well. :sweatdrop:
When you think about it the level of government intrusion is at least always equal to the collective mutual mistrust of our fellow man. That is pretty pathetic, nothing is more cynical really. Yay to a little anarchy.
Tellos Athenaios
10-07-2010, 01:48
Is it? That's pretty odd considering that government is still most certainly made up of human beings, your fellow men and women? Quite a few no-government-intrusion schemes essentially are an expression of a deep seated mistrust of those very same people. So when you think about it, isn't anarchy not an expression of a deep seated mistrust of your fellow man either?
Crazed Rabbit
10-07-2010, 03:01
From National Review: (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248658/pay-spray-fire-department-doing-right-thing-kevin-d-williamson)
The situation is this: The city of South Fulton’s fire department, until a few years ago, would not respond to any fires outside of the city limits — which is to say, the city limited its jurisdiction to the city itself, and to city taxpayers. A reasonable position. Then, a few years ago, a fire broke out in a rural area that was not covered by the city fire department, and the city authorities felt bad about not being able to do anything to help. So they began to offer an opt-in service, for the very reasonable price of $75 a year. Which is to say: They greatly expanded the range of services they offer. The rural homeowners were, collectively, better off, rather than worse off. Before the opt-in program, they had no access to a fire department. Now they do.
And, for their trouble, the South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton’s firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives.
Also of note - it was the city government that controlled the fire department that said no putting out the fire, not some for-profit company.
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
10-07-2010, 03:08
I guess they didn't have the power to mandate payment then.
Crazed Rabbit
10-07-2010, 03:11
Well, I wouldn't expect the city to be able to mandate that county residents pay anything.
In answer to the OP; I don't really have a problem with this situation. $75 a year is chump change, the people were given a choice and have to live with it.
CR
Is it? That's pretty odd considering that government is still most certainly made up of human beings, your fellow men and women? Quite a few no-government-intrusion schemes essentially are an expression of a deep seated mistrust of those very same people. So when you think about it, isn't anarchy not an expression of a deep seated mistrust of your fellow man either?
touche
Skullheadhq
10-07-2010, 08:51
Nothing good ever came from privatisation.
CountArach
10-07-2010, 10:13
What's the bet that whoever implemented this said that by cutting public services they could lower taxes... all it would cost you in return is a new tax.
EDIT: Nevermind, just read the source quoted above. However this stikes me as missing the point:
The rural homeowners were, collectively, better off, rather than worse off. Before the opt-in program, they had no access to a fire department. Now they do.
I'm not sure about how Americans feel about their strongly decentralised government (whatever you want to claim, it is decentralised far more so than most), but are you really comfortable with local governments being in charge of these sorts of services? Wouldn't you rather it be run at a state-wide level sot hat everyone, regardless of whether they are in a rich/poor town/city/rural area can get coverage anyway? These rural people were taxpayers beforehand, and the least that they could reasonably expect from their government was that if their house was burning, someone could come and put it out.
I'm not sure about how Americans feel about their strongly decentralised government (whatever you want to claim, it is decentralised far more so than most), but are you really comfortable with local governments being in charge of these sorts of services? Wouldn't you rather it be run at a state-wide level sot hat everyone, regardless of whether they are in a rich/poor town/city/rural area can get coverage anyway? These rural people were taxpayers beforehand, and the least that they could reasonably expect from their government was that if their house was burning, someone could come and put it out.
Indeed. I don't understand why Americans accept this kind of :daisy: You're the States, not some backwards banana republic. The least you can expect from your government is, indeed, firefighters that put the fire out when your house starts burning, regardless of where you live. Firefighters being "optional" or depending on the richness of the area you happen to live in is not only completely ridiculous and absurd, it's also a disgrace for a civilised country. This is not "freedom", this is a government not taking its' responsiblity. There should be an arrangement that if the city cannot provide firefighters, the federal state should and make you pay a tax that's more or less equivalent to what other people pay who live in cities with their own firefighters.
How you guys put up with the nonsense of not having firefighters in your area (or at least firefighters who will come to your area in case of an emergency) because the town you live in doesn't have enough money, goes beyond me.
Alternatively, might as well get rid of any form of government (what good is a government that doesn't even want to put the fire from a burning house out anyway) and live in complete anarchy.
rory_20_uk
10-07-2010, 11:14
Exactly how poor is a family who have a house yet can't stump $75?
Poor in insight perhaps.
~:smoking:
Exactly how poor is a family who have a house yet can't stump $75?
Poor in insight perhaps.
~:smoking:
To me, it's not a case of "Are those people morons or is their government irresponsible" but more a case of "these people are morons AND their government is irresponsible" :shrug:
These rural people were taxpayers beforehand, and the least that they could reasonably expect from their government was that if their house was burning, someone could come and put it out.
Lol, why would they want such a nanny state? People need to learn to take responsibility for themselves, a real man like MacGyver would have built his own firetruck with a needle, a chewing gum and some socks instead of relying on the nanny state to come and put out the fire that only happened due to his own incompetence anyway. Unless god made the fire rain on his house in which case he got his just punishment anyway, fires don't fall from the sky, must have been bad maintaining or some other fault of the homeowner or his family.
If those new world order firefighters wanted to invade my burning home I'd drop the bucket and get my shotty to get them off my property!
Fire services cannot be organized in a very central way though, they have to respond fast so I guess a local solution is pretty much a requirement, here we have a lot of volunteer firemen as well, although I have heard bad things about them once (didn't respond to an accident correctly, may have hurt people) and they seem a bit like a club where you can drink beer with your friends (then again, so does the army), it's better than having to wait for a firetruck from the next bigger city I guess, and the cost is lower than having a lot of paid firemen in every village.
Once again proving my rule that any organization with the word "family" in its title is psychotic:
Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground (http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026)
A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TN fire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the ground because the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fire protection.
The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandson accidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish the flames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority or responsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’s neighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action and put out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned to the ground after his family had fled for safety.
The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire department several years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached city officials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside city limits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any rural resident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourself a year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’s your choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to forego fire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay the man his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his own choice.
(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, it likely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liability insurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into a legally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate” Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreement and put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimited risk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebody violate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the same time.)
The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The right thing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be no difference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christian thing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing to do.
If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christian thing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused about Christianity, or both.
In this case, critics of the fire department are confused both about right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they have fallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only about softer virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscular Christian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must accept individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to the flesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing and reaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.
We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others who will not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. The same folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailing out Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out Wall Street firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companies for making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?
Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 on something other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice to accept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christian claim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himself made.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a wedding feast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had the chance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil, and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. The bridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying “Truly, I say to you, I do not know you” (Matthew 25:13).
The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves as accusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. They may want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radio program, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s been intriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anything I’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christian to even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr. Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all their Christian compassion toward me?)
Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorry for Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and do what I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, I would not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr. Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have to suffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.
Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on his property, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top of things, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of his insurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on the policy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any help from the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame but himself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss of his home, whether he realizes it or not.
What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had been able to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started to burn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long before everybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergency hits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soon nobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fight fires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county, and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.
(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fire protection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health care industry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. If you can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurance company has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to get insurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, either one.)
This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy, secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, and the mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongest and most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse and even reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe and less prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stresses individual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybody more safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
They're overexplaining the christian thing, but given the circumstances they're absolutely right, his choice, his problem. Of course I prefer universal protection paid for by my taxes because I'm a dirty commie but I also signed an insurance on all the stuff I have in my apartment which costs more per year than this fire insurance does.
Of course the community could have also built their own fire department with a volunteer force of firefighters but even Americans like their nanny state solutions sometimes.
gaelic cowboy
10-07-2010, 15:01
Once again proving my rule that any organization with the word "family" in its title is psychotic:
Firefighters did the Christian thing in letting house burn to the ground (http://action.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147499026)
A controversy has erupted over a decision by the South Fulton, TN fire department to allow a rural home in Obion County to burn to the ground because the owner did not pay the requisite $75 annual fee to secure fire protection.
The fire department was called when Gene Cranick’s grandson accidentally set his property on fire, but made no attempt to extinguish the flames, for the simple reason that they had no legal or moral authority or responsibility to do so. When the fire endangered the property of Cranick’s neighbor, who had paid the $75 fee, the fire department swung into action and put out the fire on the neighbor’s property. Cranick’s home meanwhile, burned to the ground after his family had fled for safety.
The backstory is that, while South Fulton had a fire department several years ago, the county did not. Rural residents approached city officials and asked them to extend their fire protective services outside city limits. Fine, said the city. We will provide fire services to any rural resident who pays an annual $75 fee. You pay the $75, you just bought yourself a year’s worth of fire protection. You don’t pay the fee, that’s fine too, it’s your choice, but be aware that you are making a deliberate choice to forego fire protection.
Fine, said Mr. Cranick, I’ll take my chances. He didn’t pay the man his $75, and when his house caught fire, he was on his own, by his own choice.
(It’s worth noting that, had the fire department responded, it likely would have violated the terms of its contract with its liability insurance carrier. The fire department almost certainly had to enter into a legally binding commitment not to operate outside its jurisdiction. So our “compassionate” Christian friends would want the fire department to break its solemn agreement and put the entire city of South Fulton in a position of virtually unlimited risk. That hardly sounds like the Christian thing to do - demand that somebody violate a solemn oath and put an entire city at needless risk at the same time.)
The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The right thing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be no difference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christian thing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing to do.
If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christian thing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused about Christianity, or both.
In this case, critics of the fire department are confused both about right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they have fallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only about softer virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscular Christian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.
The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must accept individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to the flesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing and reaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.
We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others who will not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. The same folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailing out Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out Wall Street firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companies for making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?
Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 on something other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice to accept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christian claim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himself made.
Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a wedding feast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had the chance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil, and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. The bridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying “Truly, I say to you, I do not know you” (Matthew 25:13).
The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves as accusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. They may want to be careful about that.
I talked about this story yesterday on my “Focal Point” radio program, and defended the fire department without reservation. It’s been intriguing to watch - I haven’t received as much angry blowback over anything I’ve said on air since the program began. I’ve been told I’m evil and anti-Christian to even suggest that the fire department may be in the right and that Mr. Cranick has no one to blame but himself. (Where, I might ask, is all their Christian compassion toward me?)
Christian compassion, of course, prompts us to feel truly sorry for Mr. Cranick. If he were a friend of mine, I’d feel horrible for him and do what I could to help him in his time of need. But even were I his friend, I would not blame the fire department for the loss of his home. That’s on Mr. Cranick for making an irresponsible choice in the first place.
Even he admitted to Keith Olbermann last night that “I’ll have to suffer the consequences” of failing to pay the annual fee.
Now it’s intriguing to note that Mr. Cranick had insurance on his property, and told Olbermann that his insurance company was right on top of things, and he was going to receive in short order the full value of his insurance policy. Why? Well, because Mr. Cranick paid the premiums on the policy. If he had refused to pay the premiums, he wouldn’t be getting any help from the insurance company either, and likewise would have no one to blame but himself. So even Mr. Cranick implicitly accepts responsbility for the loss of his home, whether he realizes it or not.
What angry folks fail to realize is that if Mr. Cranick had been able to get away with this - if he’d been able to wait til his house started to burn, then offer $75 and immediately get help - it wouldn’t be long before everybody else stopped paying. Why bother if you can wait until the emergency hits? If you pay when you don’t need to, that just makes you a sap. Pretty soon nobody would have fire protection at all since the city can’t afford to fight fires at $75 a pop. The city would have to withdraw its offer to the county, and everybody, especially responsible folk, would be less safe.
(Essentially what Mr. Cranick wants is “guaranteed issue” for fire protection. This is the same thing that is going to destroy the health care industry, as it is already starting to do under RomneyCare in Massachusetts. If you can wait til you get sick before applying for insurance, and the insurance company has to provide it, everybody will just wait til they get sick to get insurance and pretty soon nobody will have insurance or health care, either one.)
This story illustrates the fundamental difference between a sappy, secularist worldview, which unfortunately too many Christians have adopted, and the mature, robust Judeo-Christian worldview which made America the strongest and most prosperous nation in the world. The secularist wants to excuse and even reward irresponsibility, which eventually makes everybody less safe and less prosperous. A Christian worldview rewards responsibility and stresses individual responsibility and accountability, which in the end makes everybody more safe and more prosperous.
I’m going with mature, robust Christianity on this one.
I love it Christians who prefer low taxes cos it's what God wants before the Christian charity they are supposed to show to there NEIGHBOUR hark is that said deity choking on his morining coffee I hear.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-07-2010, 19:35
...They should pay the full cost to fight the fire, not just back premiums + a fee. If they were unwilling to spend a paltry $75/year for fire protection I doubt they paid for a homeowners insurance policy either so the contents are a complete loss as well. If one can't afford $6.25 a month *a six pack fer christsakes* then maybe they should rent. Bet they had satellite tv, cell phones, etc... but no money to protect it all from a fire. Foolish people need to get their priorities straight. It's a hard lesson, but at least no one got hurt.
Hosa:
We're saying the same thing. "Fee for service" means a fee for the entire cost of the service provided -- which, as you note, would go into the hundreds of dollars on fuel etc. as a minimum.
Hosakawa Tito
10-07-2010, 23:17
Hosa:
We're saying the same thing. "Fee for service" means a fee for the entire cost of the service provided -- which, as you note, would go into the hundreds of dollars on fuel etc. as a minimum.
No doubt I misread what ya wrote. Hehehe, of all the things I've had and lost, I miss my mind the most.~:doh:Nurse, ain't it time for me happy pill?
Strikes me that the base problem is the flawed structure of the fire service.
Samurai Waki
10-08-2010, 04:45
My political leanings bely the legality of the issue. As much as it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to say so, it seems like the owners of the home were in the wrong, I could be wrong but thats the way it appears on the surface. Still doesn't make it right.
What they missed out is the House Owners trying to buy House Insurance last minute as well, and getting refused.
rory_20_uk
10-08-2010, 13:17
They should not be refused, but it is usual for insurance to not cover existing events (such as insuring a house after it's flooded); also it often takes several weeks for insurance to be finalised.
The money should have been taken, but only if the ashes were to catch fire in a week or so.
~:smoking:
Tellos Athenaios
10-08-2010, 19:45
No doubt I misread what ya wrote. Hehehe, of all the things I've had and lost, I miss my mind the most.~:doh:Nurse, ain't it time for me happy pill?
You didn't pay the annual $75,- happy pill service fee. No pill for you. <_<
What they missed out is the House Owners trying to buy House Insurance last minute as well, and getting refused.
:laugh4:
I'm gonna do that, whenever something is broken, I'll get an insurance for it, after they paid to fix it, cancel the insurance again, I'm sure insurances will work great once everyone does that.
This family was trying to get a free ride on other peoples' expenses, why would i have any sympathies with these leeches?
Oh, yeah, I should probably answer Lemur's questions.
Two questions:
Does this demonstrate libertarianism empirically? If not, why not?
It really can't be more transparent; they had to let two houses burn before they could act because it wouldn't be profitable to put out the first one. This is like the poster child for what happens when you privatise things.
If you support this policy, could you perhaps justify how the (pointless) loss of a home is balanced out by the extra freedom? 'Cause it seems to this lemur like it's an obvious net loss for the community.
It is and it takes a severely demented mind to think that was a good plan.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-09-2010, 04:55
Severely demented?
Severely demented?
I really can't think of a better way to put it. This is third world crap we're talking here.
Severely demented?
As opposed to those of us who are just mildly demented. Sheesh, I thought that was obvious.
As opposed to those of us who are just mildly demented. Sheesh, I thought that was obvious.
We're all a little demented. :beam:
I suppose I should have used a different word, but I couldn't think of many that wouldn't get me infracted.
Crazed Rabbit
10-10-2010, 09:24
Supporting this is pretty simple.
It costs money to run a fire department.
The annual $75 fee does not pay anywhere near the cost of the fire department putting out one fire.
Therefore, it is only because a large number of county residents pay for fire department service and do not have fires that the fire department can continue to offer service to the county.
If the fire department had, upon arriving at the scene of this fire, accepted payment of $75 or put out the fire for free, they would have removed all financial incentive for people to pay for service every year. This would lead to people deciding not to pay for service until their house was on fire. If only the people who got fires paid, the fire department could not continue offering service to the county.
In that case, that means no one in the county gets fire department service. So instead of only idiots who set fire to their home and haven't paid the fire department service bill not getting service, not a single person would get service.
(The other option of having the fire department raise the bill substantially - to thousands of dollars to pay for equipment, transport, wages, maintenance, insurance, training, infrastructure, etc., - would mean people who own homes would face a severe financial burden in being able to afford the fire department.)
So that is why I support this. The fire department offers a very affordable option to pay for service. If they do not strictly enforce it, they won't be able to offer anyone service outside of the city and therefore more homes will burn down than if they put this out.
Also - in response to Lemur's posting of that 'family' group article. It's like hitting a pinata with no blindfold, but I'll say it; of course letting a person's house burn down isn't the Christian thing to do. You'll notice that's how the government operates.
CR
PanzerJaeger
10-10-2010, 09:38
I'm still wondering how this is a net loss for the community.
I'm still wondering why a fire service that can clearly reach these areas has only just started providing the service. To me it beggars belief that some areas in a first world country have no fire service provision. From a firefighting point of view it is sensible to tackle every fire in order to stop it spreading, or in order to stop something dangerous like chemicals, gas or pressurized containers going up. Further, what would have happened if there had been someone inside? You may say that there wasn't, but eventually that situation will arise under what is to me a harebrained scheme harking back to the bad old days.
Supporting this is pretty simple.
hoo boy
If the fire department had, upon arriving at the scene of this fire, accepted payment of $75 or put out the fire for free, they would have removed all financial incentive for people to pay for service every year. This would lead to people deciding not to pay for service until their house was on fire. If only the people who got fires paid, the fire department could not continue offering service to the county.
Or they could, you know, appropriate the fee through taxes and make the service free at the point of use like every other civilized country on the planet.
more homes will burn down than if they put this out.
They had to wait until a second house caught fire before they could put out the first. A nationalized fire service would have put out the first one before it spread. And the problem will keep repeating itself as long as there's idiots like the fire chief who will willfully endanger entire neughborhoods to preserve his little racket everytime someone doesn't pay the fee.
Or they could, you know, appropriate the fee through taxes and make the service free at the point of use like every other civilized country on the planet.
Yepp.
Rhyfelwyr
10-10-2010, 23:59
And the problem will keep repeating itself as long as there's idiots like the fire chief who will willfully endanger entire neughborhoods to preserve his little racket everytime someone doesn't pay the fee.
So when you have the option to pay, it's a racket, but when you have to pay, it's legitimate?
So when you have the option to pay, it's a racket, but when you have to pay, it's legitimate?
When the option in question pertains to an absolute fundamental of society? Absolutely.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-11-2010, 00:10
Regardless of whether it would be better to tax (I think so), it is wrong to portray it as injustice. Remember, 75$. It's a kind of cosmic justice really. It sounds uncaring on the part of the firefighters, but it would be wrong to judge from afar on that.
I don't think it's been shown that the city had the authority to tax the people. The plan or "racket" was their attempt to extend coverage to these people.
By the way, what some town in tennessee does cannot make the US into a third world country or an uncivilized country no matter how you'd like to twist it :mellow:
Crazed Rabbit
10-11-2010, 00:36
Or they could, you know, appropriate the fee through taxes and make the service free at the point of use like every other civilized country on the planet.
I wasn't aware the city could tax people who live outside the city limits. So, no, they couldn't do that.
They had to wait until a second house caught fire before they could put out the first. A nationalized fire service would have put out the first one before it spread. And the problem will keep repeating itself as long as there's idiots like the fire chief who will willfully endanger entire neughborhoods to preserve his little racket everytime someone doesn't pay the fee.
I don't think any second house caught fire - just some bordering bushes. And remember, this is out in the county, which means houses aren't really close like in the city or suburbs.
And since I need to repeat this; 'preserving his racket' means making sure the fire department has funds enough to offer service to anyone in the county.
CR
By the way, what some town in tennessee does cannot make the US into a third world country or an uncivilized country no matter how you'd like to twist it :mellow:
You're not one who appreciates rhetoric, are you? Always so cold and calculated, never a burning flame of passion. You could do with some more pathos and less logos ~;)
By the way, what some town in tennessee does cannot make the US into a third world country or an uncivilized country no matter how you'd like to twist it :mellow:
You could argue that there would not be an opening for such a thing to happen in a modern (aka civilized) country. Things like this baffles me, but then I assume I am one of those communist europeans with extreme political views, such as school and fire protection should be for everyone and funded on taxes.
To arms, comrades!
By the way, what some town in tennessee does cannot make the US into a third world country or an uncivilized country no matter how you'd like to twist it :mellow:
Of course you cannot make a thing something it already is. ~;)
Ironside
10-11-2010, 11:17
I wasn't aware the city could tax people who live outside the city limits. So, no, they couldn't do that.
The surprising part is that you've a concept of "outside city limits" in admistration. Largest area city (well municipality) we have is 20715 km2, with 80% of the 23000 inhabitants living in the main conurbation(?). Obviously, if you live in the middle of nowhere, you house will probably burn down due to the time it takes for the firefighters to get there, but they are still covered by firefighters and if they arrive in time they will put out the fire.
How is crimes handled outside city limits? State police immidiatly? No police at all?
I don't think any second house caught fire - just some bordering bushes. And remember, this is out in the county, which means houses aren't really close like in the city or suburbs.
Which is why they were there to prevent the fire to spread. The concept feels a bit odd when the fire department needs to be there and watch to ensure that your house burns down properly.
And since I need to repeat this; 'preserving his racket' means making sure the fire department has funds enough to offer service to anyone in the county.
CR
Yes, the fire department did exactly everything correct by the rules that have been set up. So the question is if the rules are stupid or not. And Lemur is perfectly correct that it's awfully one sided on that matter.
ajaxfetish
10-11-2010, 16:55
How is crimes handled outside city limits? State police immidiatly? No police at all?
We have different police organizations working for different levels of government. That's why you get city police, county sheriffs, state highway patrols, federal marshals, and so forth. In this case, I imagine crime in the area would be under the county sheriff's jurisdiction. As for how the different groups coordinate their activities, there I couldn't give you details.
Ajax
edit: as for fire service on the county level, I don't know whether the county government just doesn't have fire service, or whether it does but the close-by city was capable of providing much better response times and so offered to extend their service, or something else. Generally speaking, I think it'd make less sense for counties to provide fire service than cities, as the lower population density would increase costs and raise response times both. Also probably even less efficient for the state or fed to provide fire service. Where I grew up (on unincorporated county land), I think we had a county or state fire marshal, who addressed fire issues on county land, mostly brush fires, and wildland firefighters were called in (sometimes from multiple states) to fight major fires on an as-needed basis. Most home and car protection in the county was provided by local volunteer fire departments.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-12-2010, 12:23
Lemur:
Thank you. This thread has allowed for a debate centered on the very nature of governance and generated a wonderful discussion. Kudos!
edit: as for fire service on the county level, I don't know whether the county government just doesn't have fire service, or whether it does but the close-by city was capable of providing much better response times and so offered to extend their service, or something else. Generally speaking, I think it'd make less sense for counties to provide fire service than cities, as the lower population density would increase costs and raise response times both. Also probably even less efficient for the state or fed to provide fire service. Where I grew up (on unincorporated county land), I think we had a county or state fire marshal, who addressed fire issues on county land, mostly brush fires, and wildland firefighters were called in (sometimes from multiple states) to fight major fires on an as-needed basis. Most home and car protection in the county was provided by local volunteer fire departments.
Are their money transfers in the US?
What I mean is this: let's say State A is rich (e.g. it's densely populated and has a good working economy) and State B is poor (e.g. very low population density, low economic activity); State B cannot afford a fire service that covers all areas of the state. Is there a system in the US state structure that creates a transfer of money from State A to State B so that State B can afford a fire service, paid with the money they received from State A? Or is it each State/City/county for its' own, which means that if you happen to live in State B, you have a crappy police department and no fire fighters, period? Is there a form of solidarity between the different States?
Quid with the Federal State? Is the Federal State competent/obliged to provide essential services in poor States who can't afford it themselves, using money it receives from each State (I assume each State contributes to the Federal State)? Is the Federal State allowed to step in if things in State B are getting really ugly?
rory_20_uk
10-12-2010, 13:34
How does one avoid a situation where a state spends all their money on some services creating an intentional deficiency in others which then "has" to be corrected by the Federal government?
I realise this is an extreme example, but North Korea has for years found that if it builds up its armed forces at the expense of infrastructure / power / food it will be given these things for free as long as it promises to not use its armed forces; if it merely tried to provide the latter options it'd be in a far weaker position.
~:smoking:
I'm still wondering how this is a net loss for the community.
Because the broken window theory of economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window) is demonstrably false. Therefore, whatever economic activity is generated by clearing the rubble, rebuilding, etc., is more than offset by the lost productivity* of a needlessly destroyed home. Claro?
From the Austrian School economist Frédéric Bastiat:
Whence we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;" and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end—To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, "destruction is not profit."
* Since you'll doubtless contest this, let's break it down a little bit: Family (potentially) forced to rebuild, thus wiping out their savings which were generating capital for their local bank, as well as taking money away that they might have spent with local businesses (and no, the construction/rebuilding does not equal or exceed the lost productivity, as already shown): locals lose. Family may take loan to finance rebuilding, thus sucking down credit that could have been used for more productive purposes. County and township take a hit on their tax base, since property value is (at the very least) halved, if not quartered. Family may decide to move, in which case township/county lose a working family in addition to the devalued property.
Honestly, I don't see why you're "wondering how this is a net loss for the community." Even an amateur's knowledge of economics would make the answer obvious.
Honestly, I don't see why you're "wondering how this is a net loss for the community." Even an amateur's knowledge of economics would make the answer obvious.You're making a lot of assumptions that may or may not be true. What if their house was a dump that was pulling down property values? When was the house's valued assessed last for tax purposes? What if whoever rebuilds on the lot builds a structure that's assessed at a greater value? What if, instead of being burned down, the house were condemned... under your criteria, would it still be a loss for the community?
Lastly, based on your above points, do you then agree that government stimulus money cannot create more economic activity than it costs? :cheesy:
It probably was a loss for the community- but it's not the cut and dry 'well duh!' question that you're claiming it is.
Tellos Athenaios
10-13-2010, 17:36
Well it in its totality it is. That house (and whatever was inside) represented value. That value got burned up. Is a loss in my book.
You're making a lot of assumptions that may or may not be true.
To suppose a net loss of value requires far fewer and less unlikely assumptions than to suppose a net gain. Occam's Razor wins.
Lastly, based on your above points, do you then agree that government stimulus money cannot create more economic activity than it costs?
Indeed, if only we could have avoided all of that government spending in the '40s we could have somehow ended the Great Depression.
I see the analogy you're trying to draw, but I think your'e skipping a number of steps. Is taxation destruction? Sticking to the Broken Window analogy, is taxing a pane of glass the same as smashing it? If not, how does your analogy to the Broken Window theory hold up?
PanzerJaeger
10-13-2010, 19:00
Honestly, I don't see why you're "wondering how this is a net loss for the community." Even an amateur's knowledge of economics would make the answer obvious.
I've been instructed not to engage in such instances, but the insult is noted.
To suppose a net loss of value requires far fewer and less unlikely assumptions than to suppose a net gain. Occam's Razor wins.
Given what we know about these specific people, I would argue the opposite.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 19:07
I don't see how it's a loss for the community in the first place. If my neighbor buys a ferrari is it a net gain for the community? Sounds like a gain for him. And maybe everyone else is envious so they lose. If a tree falls down in my yard is it a net loss? I don't get what we're talking about...
the insult is noted.
????
If my neighbor buys a ferrari is it a net gain for the community? Sounds like a gain for him. And maybe everyone else is envious so they lose. If a tree falls down in my yard is it a net loss? I don't get what we're talking about...
The generation and movement of value, i.e. wealth. If your neighbor is making enough money to afford a Ferrarri, then he is probably a net gain for the community, both through the taxes he pays and the economic activity he generates. If he is not working and taking benefits such as food stamps or welfare, he's probably a net economic loss for your area. We're not making any sort of moral judgment of your neighbor, just estimating how he impacts the local balance sheet.
If a tree falls in your yard and damages something of value, that is a net loss for you, and potentially for your township, in some small but measurable way.
All of this goes back to the notion of allowing a house to burn down being a net loss for the community, which some are finding a difficult proposition to accept. Again: "To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, 'destruction is not profit.' "
PanzerJaeger
10-13-2010, 19:40
I don't see how it's a loss for the community in the first place. If my neighbor buys a ferrari is it a net gain for the community? Sounds like a gain for him. And maybe everyone else is envious so they lose. If a tree falls down in my yard is it a net loss? I don't get what we're talking about...
You big dumb idiot! Anyone who can spell 'economics' should be able to figure out the answer.
You big dumb idiot! Anyone who can spell 'economics' should be able to figure out the answer.
Ah, with that reading I can see why you're taking such offense. Well, that and maybe somebody didn't get his coffee today.
Let's re-phrase:
"I can't figure out" is different from "I disagree." The former suggests incomprehension; the latter disagreement. You never said, "I understand the point and disagree with it," but rather, "I can't figure this out," to which I expressed my (offensive and insulting and noted for future reference (http://lyricalwisdom.wordpress.com/2006/10/09/i-hope-you-know-this-will-go-down-on-your-permanent-record/)) incredulity.
The position I have staked out is simple, and should not require a great deal of head-scratching. Needless destruction of property is a net loss. This is about as complex as saying that when hydrogen and oxygen have a threesome they make water.
So if you meant to say, "I disagree with what you're saying," then well and good. But if you position, as written, is literally "I don't understand this exotic theory," then yes, I think your posture is deliberately and dishonestly obtuse.
The generation and movement of value, i.e. wealth. If your neighbor is making enough money to afford a Ferrarri, then he is probably a net gain for the community, both through the taxes he pays and the economic activity he generates. If he is not working and taking benefits such as food stamps or welfare, he's probably a net economic loss for your area. We're not making any sort of moral judgment of your neighbor, just estimating how he impacts the local balance sheet.
Now you're advocating trickle down economics!
Now you're advocating trickle down economics!
Um, no, not even vaguely. You keep extrapolating from my (rather bland and pedestrian) position to your own ideology. Please tell me you don't employ these sorts of tactics when conversing with Mrs. Xiahou. That way madness lies.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-13-2010, 21:11
????
The generation and movement of value, i.e. wealth. If your neighbor is making enough money to afford a Ferrarri, then he is probably a net gain for the community, both through the taxes he pays and the economic activity he generates. If he is not working and taking benefits such as food stamps or welfare, he's probably a net economic loss for your area. We're not making any sort of moral judgment of your neighbor, just estimating how he impacts the local balance sheet.
If a tree falls in your yard and damages something of value, that is a net loss for you, and potentially for your township, in some small but measurable way.
All of this goes back to the notion of allowing a house to burn down being a net loss for the community, which some are finding a difficult proposition to accept. Again: "To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, 'destruction is not profit.' "
So "net loss" is really "net economic loss"...they aren't really the same thing. You were asking, is the economic cost balanced out by the extra freedom? And then said it was a net loss (this is back in the op). But if it is only clear that it is a net economic loss, than we still have to see if it is balanced out be the extra freedom. And that isn't a dollar value. hmm.
So "net loss" is really "net economic loss"...they aren't really the same thing. You were asking, is the economic cost balanced out by the extra freedom? And then said it was a net loss (this is back in the op). But if it is only clear that it is a net economic loss, than we still have to see if it is balanced out be the extra freedom. And that isn't a dollar value. hmm.
Sure, that's a fine way of parsing the OP, and I don't think it creates an imponderable. Needless destruction of property is an obvious and inarguable net economic loss for the community. Does the township's policy redeem this loss in some way? Admittedly, when I wrote the OP there were a number of details I didn't know, so I wouldn't have phrased it quite the same way were I posting it now, but that's how life rolls sometimes.
-edit-
Something I'm still unclear on: What would the fire dept's standing orders be if human life were threatened? Would making an example of this family be carried to a hideous extreme? What about animal life? If a dog were trapped in the burning house, would the firefighters be under any onus to rescue it?
Something I'm still unclear on: What would the fire dept's standing orders be if human life were threatened? Would making an example of this family be carried to a hideous extreme? What about animal life? If a dog were trapped in the burning house, would the firefighters be under any onus to rescue it?
I would assume they'd get manslaughter charges if they didn't fight the fire and someone died in it.
Then again, I, like Tellos, also assumed that it was federal law that firefighters must assist in a fire no matter what the county or township or whatever says, and look how that turned out.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-14-2010, 04:42
...Something I'm still unclear on: What would the fire dept's standing orders be if human life were threatened? Would making an example of this family be carried to a hideous extreme? What about animal life? If a dog were trapped in the burning house, would the firefighters be under any onus to rescue it?
I am not certain of the specific standards applied by this department, but I have chatted with a number of volunteer firefighters over the years. Most rural and/or volunteer departments will do almost anything in their power to rescue someone, regardless of specifics. In general, they will attempt to minimize damage to property, but not at significant risk to themselves. Pets are NOT on the must save list, but most of the firefighters I spoke with would incur some risk to get the pets out -- they tend to be fans of big dogs and pet owners themselves.
This is different from big city departments, where "aggressive interior attack" is normally the standard under the assumption that any and all fires can spread rapidly in a dense urban environment. This approach does carry a higher casualty total.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.