Libertarianism: a case study in consequences

[Harry Guerrilla]

This kind of stupidity was common place in major cities in the US the 1800s and early 1900s. And that pretty much exposes the Libertarian movement.. they want to turn back time.

The 'failure' of their government to provide fire services IS the libertarian model. I seriously doubt your supposition about his reasons for not having services, and I don't see how this is relevant in any event.

Lets review the facts.

The city of South Fulton fire department services the residents of the city.
The city of South Fulton offered to the county residents, the fire department service for a fee.
The city of South Fulton does not have taxation authority over the other county residents, the fee is voluntary.

The people in the county, who pay the fee for the service, get their fires put out.
If the county wants to establish a fire department, they have the authority to do so but they have not.

I highlighted the relevant portions which should put this into perspective.

From the story:
"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.

This is cute, "I don't want to pay taxes but I want all the benefits that come with being a tax payer."
I guess he chose poorly.

 

[Technocratic]

Or, they could have used a less retarded model and billed the people after they put out the fire instead of watching it burn down like Guy Montag. Watching it burn down is a stupid policy anyway, given it endangers anyone near that person.

It's morally irresponsible to refuse to put out a fire because someone didn't have a subscription to you. What if someone died? Only a Libertarian would defend that.

 

[RightinNYC]

Or, they could have used a less retarded model and billed the people after they put out the fire instead of watching it burn down like Guy Montag.

And if you'd bothered to read the articles in this thread, you would have seen where the fire chief explained that it's not economically feasible to simply bill people per fire. It's the reason why auto insurance companies don't simply collect premiums after you crash.

It's morally irresponsible to refuse to put out a fire because someone didn't have a subscription to you. What if someone died? Only a Libertarian would defend that.

And only someone who is willfully refusing to see what's put in front of them would have missed the part where they explained (twice) that they will always put out the fire if there is risk to human life.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Or, they could have used a less retarded model and billed the people after they put out the fire instead of watching it burn down like Guy Montag. Watching it burn down is a stupid policy anyway, given it endangers anyone near that person.

It's morally irresponsible to refuse to put out a fire because someone didn't have a subscription to you. What if someone died? Only a Libertarian would defend that.

Lets run this through the eventual consequences system.

The people promise to pay after the fact, some don't requiring collections and possibly attorneys for litigating the owed money.
During those delays, the people who chose to pay upfront, have to pay more because some people love to use emergency services, without being good little tax payers.

No thanks.

 

[Dezaad]

...

So when any government fails to provide any service, you just call that "the libertarian model"? That must make it easy to draw sweeping conclusions.

The reason why this is permitted is because of the simplistic arguments required to favor libertarianism. At least when it is argued for from some misguided "moral" approach. I have seen folks resorting to just such an approach when the pragmatic approach also fails. The sweeping conclusions are a consequence of these simplistic arguments.

 

[Ikari]

Are you sure?
Because last time I checked my guidebook to libertarianism, it didn't say that.

Anarcho-capitalists are down the hall, to the right.

Well most people who love emotional rants against particular ideologies hardly ever let facts, logical thought, or adult debate stop them.

 

[Gabriel]

Yeah this is some issue with the privatisation of government services. But further private enterprise will be more expensive then a government service. Clearly if it is done with a profit motive the administrative and owners profit motive is an extra cost. They do not operate in service of the citizens they are beholden to profits .. first.

 

[Ikari]

Or, they could have used a less retarded model and billed the people after they put out the fire instead of watching it burn down like Guy Montag. Watching it burn down is a stupid policy anyway, given it endangers anyone near that person.

It's morally irresponsible to refuse to put out a fire because someone didn't have a subscription to you. What if someone died? Only a Libertarian would defend that.

Yeah right, because when people get a bill, the ALWAYS pay. That's not a sustainable method to charge after the fact. Blood from a stone; you won't see a lot of that money overall. You can think that individual, this guy could have been charged and could have paid; but it's not going to be true once you aggregate it over the whole. And once you do, your plan is a money sink. This is not a failure of libertarian ideology, this is a failure of bureaucracy. The city government doesn't have the power to tax the country. They can't tax them for fire services. Instead, they offer a fee that one can pay into. Probably stupid not to. But they are bound, that's all they can do. They cannot tax, they cannot charge after the fact less they want to deficit spend a bunch. All they are left with is this fee, and this man made his bed. It sucks, but there are many things about reality which do.

The fact is that you didn't want an honest examination about the story. You needed a launching point for your anti-libertarian diatribe. And it's piss poor at best. It didn't stand up to scrutiny and your horrible bias is apparent from the start.

 

[Technocratic]

Lets run this through the eventual consequences system.

The people promise to pay after the fact, some don't requiring collections and possibly attorneys for litigating the owed money.
During those delays, the people who chose to pay upfront, have to pay more because some people love to use emergency services, without being good little tax payers.

No thanks.

So, your solution is to:

A. Kill people
B. Llet fires get out of control.

LoL. Sorry, but that's a retarded way to do things. In fact, my suggestion is exactly what was done in philly in the 18th century. They didn't let the entire town burn down because oen person didn't pay. They put out the fire, sent a bill. It worked.

 

[Technocratic]

Well most people who love emotional rants against particular ideologies hardly ever let facts, logical thought, or adult debate stop them.

Libertarians are mostly anarcho capitalists in a clown costume. Just look at Harry. His solution is just as absurd as I said it would be: let people die, watch things urn down, refuse to put out fires, risking your whole town ends up burning down.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

So, your solution is to:

A. Kill people
B. Llet fires get out of control.

LoL. Sorry, but that's a retarded way to do things. In fact, my suggestion is exactly what was done in philly in the 18th century. They didn't let the entire town burn down because oen person didn't pay. They put out the fire, sent a bill. It worked.

My solution is, if you want a fire department, lobby your local county to tax and start one.

 

[Technocratic]

Yeah right, because when people get a bill, the ALWAYS pay. That's not a sustainable method to charge after the fact. Blood from a stone; you won't see a lot of that money overall. You can think that individual, this guy could have been charged and could have paid; but it's not going to be true once you aggregate it over the whole. And once you do, your plan is a money sink. This is not a failure of libertarian ideology, this is a failure of bureaucracy. The city government doesn't have the power to tax the country. They can't tax them for fire services. Instead, they offer a fee that one can pay into. Probably stupid not to. But they are bound, that's all they can do. They cannot tax, they cannot charge after the fact less they want to deficit spend a bunch. All they are left with is this fee, and this man made his bed. It sucks, but there are many things about reality which do.

The fact is that you didn't want an honest examination about the story. You needed a launching point for your anti-libertarian diatribe. And it's piss poor at best. It didn't stand up to scrutiny and your horrible bias is apparent from the start.

Incorrect. It certainly stands up to scrutiny. Libertarians are just all nutjobs and don't see the problem with their faith. They approve of Guy Montags watching your house burn down, killing people innocently, and risking everyone through allowing fires to spread. I don't expect you, a Libertarian, to see anything wrong with your sociopathic religion.

 

[Technocratic]

My solution is, if you want a fire department, lobby your local county to tax and start one.

Translation: I will evade unpleasant consequences of my nutty libertarian religion and pretend they really aren't bad after all.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Libertarians are mostly anarcho capitalists in a clown costume. Just look at Harry. His solution is just as absurd as I said it would be: let people die, watch things urn down, refuse to put out fires, risking your whole town ends up burning down.

Not at all, it's being hard nosed about limited city resources.

Tax based emergency services, surprisingly enough, cost money and are not a charity service.

You want a fire department in your county, get the county to start one.
In many areas out here there are volunteer fire departments.
Huge taxes are unnecessary too.

 

[Ikari]

Yeah this is some issue with the privatisation of government services. But further private enterprise will be more expensive then a government service. Clearly if it is done with a profit motive the administrative and owners profit motive is an extra cost. They do not operate in service of the citizens they are beholden to profits .. first.

Yup, they sure are. And quite frankly, there are things that private industry can do well better than government. The converse is true as well; there are things which the government can do better than private industry (a reason why libertarians tend not to be anarchists as the OP would like to suggest). In the case of police, fire, etc., the government can do a better job. One because of its power of aggregation, it can (doesn't mean does) provide a more consistent ability to perform duties. Also they can enact certain necessary legal protections for the workers. The real trick is figuring out where the line between private/public is drawn. And further complicating the matters is free market inefficiencies. A company does draw on pure profit, and as such they can easily get stuck in a local minimum which is not the global minimum. But their market forces may not be enough to overcome the potential barrier to reach the global. Some can say, "well this shows that government needs to take X over". But it may not be true, you could use the government to tunnel to the global minimum and allow private to take over again.

I think that in general, if it's possible it's best to leave it to private industry. But private industry does not solve everything; there are some things for which government is a necessity.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Translation: I will evade unpleasant consequences of my nutty libertarian religion and pretend they really aren't bad after all.

Uh no, I don't expect my city fire department to travel across the county to put out a fire.
By that time the fire is well beyond the point of control and would be wasteful of the resources.
Instead, my county has decided to start one over there.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

 

[Ikari]

Libertarians are mostly anarcho capitalists in a clown costume. Just look at Harry. His solution is just as absurd as I said it would be: let people die, watch things urn down, refuse to put out fires, risking your whole town ends up burning down.

Well if we're going by posts, then conservatives must all be a bunch of hyperbole spewing, emotionalized, spiteful socialists who think that the government should take over all services and have infinite power to tax.

HAHAHAHAHAH. Your style is kinda fun, but it's too intellectually dishonest for my likes.

 

[Technocratic]

Not at all, it's being hard nosed about limited city resources.

Tax based emergency services, surprisingly enough, cost money and are not a charity service.

No one said they were. However, Libertarians apparently aren't smart, or ethical enough, to understand the problem with allowing buildings to burn down and watching them burn. Ben Franklin saw the problem with this, and when Philly implemented a fee-based fire department, they did not allow people who did not pay the fee toh have their homes burn down. They sent a bill. It worked.

With the Libertarian solution, they watch your house burn down and risk others' lives and property, not to mention potentially allowing anyone innocent in the buildng to die as they watch it burn.

 

[Ikari]

My solution is, if you want a fire department, lobby your local county to tax and start one.

You and your damned reasonable solutions! Why should they have to lobby? The government should just have assumed the ability to tax people out of their prescribed boundaries! Don't you see....libertarian...failure...and....no....must resist.....urge.....to.......be.........reasonable..........

LIBERTARIANS BRING THE DOOM!

 

[Technocratic]

Well if we're going by posts, then conservatives must all be a bunch of hyperbole spewing, emotionalized, spiteful socialists who think that the government should take over all services and have infinite power to tax.

HAHAHAHAHAH. Your style is kinda fun, but it's too intellectually dishonest for my likes.

According to ikari, not approving of firemen watching a house burn down, literally, is socialism. And advocating people get billed for services rendered is also socialism, now.

Libertarians have gone completely off the deep end. Everything is "socialislm"

You need to take your Adamn Smith pills. You're not very rational, are you?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

No one said they were. However, Libertarians apparently aren't smart, or ethical enough, to understand the problem with allowing buildings to burn down and watching them burn. Ben Franklin saw the problem with this, and when Philly implemented a fee-based fire department, they did not allow people who did not pay the fee toh have their homes burn down. They sent a bill. It worked.

With the Libertarian solution, they watch your house burn down and risk others' lives and property, not to mention potentially allowing anyone innocent in the buildng to die as they watch it burn.

You give an inch, they'll take a mile.
Given the fee paying history of this county resident, I wouldn't necessarily count on it.

I'm sure they would of stopped the fire before it got to other, paying clients.
This wouldn't have to happen, if the county had a fire department.
Something this guy should have considered when he bought his house and before his house caught fire.

The city said that, if the fire was endangering lives, that they would have stepped in to help.

 

[Ikari]

They sent a bill. It worked.

So if a bill worked (key wording being past tense), why are there collection agencies now and why is it that they don't always collect? Back when things were starting off, when communities were relatively small; yes it could have worked. The sophistication which is in place now, the scale of things we have now, makes sending a bill after the fact an act which is guaranteed to lose money. Even the government needs money, typically gained through taxes. And that's where your solution lies. The people have to vote to expand the power of taxation to that city to include the rural areas in emergency services. Don't sit here bitching about libertarian this or that. It's not our fault some of y'all are too stupid to take care of yourselves or think for yourselves.

 

[Technocratic]

Thank goodness Libertarians are just a crazy fringe loon movement. If they had any real power, we'd be living in a total nightmare free for all where the police watch you get shot, the firemen look at your houes burning down, and there is no social safety net, so you starve if things go wrong.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

You and your damned reasonable solutions! Why should they have to lobby? The government should just have assumed the ability to tax people out of their prescribed boundaries! Don't you see....libertarian...failure...and....no....must resist.....urge.....to.......be.........reasonable..........

LIBERTARIANS BRING THE DOOM!

Volunteer fire department = socialism.
Oppose at all costs.

Just thought I'd add to the hyperbole around here. :mrgreen:

 

[Technocratic]

So if a bill worked (key wording being past tense), why are there collection agencies now and why is it that they don't always collect? Back when things were starting off, when communities were relatively small; yes it could have worked. The sophistication which is in place now, the scale of things we have now, makes sending a bill after the fact an act which is guaranteed to lose money. Even the government needs money, typically gained through taxes. And that's where your solution lies. The people have to vote to expand the power of taxation to that city to include the rural areas in emergency services. Don't sit here bitching about libertarian this or that. It's not our fault some of y'all are too stupid to take care of yourselves or think for yourselves.

THe fact that there are collection agencies doesn't mean sending a bill doesn't work. That's part of the system. According to your logic, sending a cable bill must not work, because collection agencies are needed to collect from some people.

In fact...the guy above offered to pay far, far more to the system to get the service.

It has nothing to do with some people not able to take care of themselves, but the stupidity and lack of ethics inherent in Libertarian policy proposals, such as private emergency services, lol.