Libertarianism: a case study in consequences

[Technocratic]

It's a hard concept for those with no belief in personal responsibility or action. The city cannot tax them, they don't have the power. Thus they offered the fee. To everyone. Everyone could take it, but they can't make it mandatory because they don't have that power. The dude made a choice. Yes, it would be better to extend tax power to the place. Yes, in the land of sunshine and lollipops you could charge him after the fact and he'd pay. But that's not the reality of the situation. And if the people of that rural area do not want a repeat, they have to do something. Government isn't this all omnipotent force that knows what we need when we need it. We still have to make actions and abide by the consequences of those actions. I don't see how that's a tough concept; but for some it may be out of their intellectual capacity.

I don't think stupid people, or their innocent kids, should be punished with suffering for being stupid. YOu apparently do. If anything, being stupid means they needed greater controls and limitations. These people highlight a problem with most people, which leads to unnecessary suffering: short-sightedness. Most people do not understand their own needs. People are notriously bad at evaluating their own consumption, habits, etc.

Any system that assumes rational market actor theory as a basis is doomed to fail. The Libertarian phrase "no one knows me better than me" is actually wrong.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Yes. State run prisons do it better than the junkies they got now doing it. The facilities are staffed with people underpaid, overworked, and short-handed. When the company is hired throught the lowest bidder, one expects that. Except, running a facility like it's a wal mart is no way to do the job.

My state staffs the corrections facilities around here and the starting wage was less than what I made at my factory job.

Plus just becoming a corrections officer is a bureaucratic pain in the ass.
I actually researched it.

 

[RightinNYC]

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.

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.

So, your solution is to:

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

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.

I've explained this to you not once, not twice, but three times now.

The fire chief made it exceedingly clear that any risk to human life would warrant fire services, regardless of whether a person paid.

I can only conclude one of two things - either you're having exceptional difficulties reading and comprehending the written word, or you're just completely disingenuous and are ignoring things that get in the way of your hysterical rants.

Libertarians like him don't think like normal people who have empathy and a sense of social duty. They think, literally, like egoistic sociopaths.

There's only one person who is making insane posts in this thread and it's not one of the libertarians.

 

[Technocratic]

My state staffs the corrections facilities around here and the starting wage was less than what I made at my factory job.

Plus just becoming a corrections officer is a bureaucratic pain in the ass.
I actually researched it.

Yea, there are a lot of hoops to jump through. If people knew what went on in CCA, they would pitch a fit, but it's all hush hush. Someone recently died there becuse CCA didn't have enough people to take an inmate to the infirmary. It's sad.

 

[Hatuey]

There are some things that voluntary taxation would be preferable, like Social Security but other things where it is totally unreasonable.

Depends on how needed the service is.

Agreed.

890

 

[Ikari]

I don't think stupid people, or their innocent kids, should be punished with suffering for being stupid. YOu apparently do. If anything, being stupid means they needed greater controls and limitations. These people highlight a problem with most people, which leads to unnecessary suffering: short-sightedness. Most people do not understand their own needs. People are notriously bad at evaluating their own consumption, habits, etc.

Any system that assumes rational market actor theory as a basis is doomed to fail. The Libertarian phrase "no one knows me better than me" is actually wrong.

I didn't say anything like that. I said they have to do something about it. I can't do anything about it. They must take the action. The problem has now been highlighted and if they want to fix it; they have to do something about it. You apparently think that suffering can be abolished with enough government force. But the government isn't god. People will make choices all the time, and people will reap the consequences of those choices all the time. Government is not sitting there with the strings of fate deciding on each individual. At some point we have to understand that this is our responsibility. Because it is not sustainable to merely charge after the fact; a solution must be found here. Either you extend the tax power or you live with houses burning down.

But you want the forced solution. You're going to say "OMG...he didn't pay and his house burnt down; government should have been able to step in and prevent that." But would be unwise as it oversteps restrictions on the government to do so and there is only so long they could run a deficit on their emergency services for so long before it impacts them. That is the piece of the puzzle you're missing, because there is no such thing as a free lunch (and anyone who doesn't get that reference should feel really bad about themselves right now). The fact of the matter is "pay later" will result in a lot of people not paying. You say, that guy didn't pay but we've gotta save his house. I'm saying look at the entire system. The pay later route will leave budget holes, budget holes are fixed with cuts and firings. That fire department may end up down a fireman which would endanger a lot more people through decreasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the fire department.

Money needs paying, you cannot sustain "pay later". If you have pay later, there is no incentive to pay the fee in the first place. Then you're on direct service payment instead of aggregating the cost across a larger populace. I mean Jesus, did you think of any of this before you went into your "Libertarians are the Devil" soap box?

 

[Technocratic]

I've explained this to you not once, not twice, but three times now.

And you miss the same point each time.

The fire chief made it exceedingly clear that any risk to human life would warrant fire services, regardless of whether a person paid.

Except, that reasoning fails, because they were already negligent and put people's lives potentially at risk. Not putting out a fire, as they did, was refuting his own statement. Maybe you should work on being exceedingly accurate, instead of exceedngly clear.

I can only conclude one of two things - either you're having exceptional difficulties reading and comprehending the written word, or you're just completely disingenuous and are ignoring things that get in the way of your hysterical rants.

No. Anyone could have been in the home as it was burning. The people could have been emotionally distrought, not thinking clearly, etc. That is frequently the case. Sitting outside and doing nothing because you think there is no one inside is already putting lives in jeopardy. That's what happened.

 

[Technocratic]

Money needs paying, you cannot sustain "pay later". If you have pay later, there is no incentive to pay the fee in the first place. Then you're on direct service payment instead of aggregating the cost across a larger populace. I mean Jesus, did you think of any of this before you went into your "Libertarians are the Devil" soap box?

Yes. We already know it mostly works. Emergency services have actually done it in the past, successfully. But you didn't think of that. There certainly is an incentive to pay the insurance fee: it would be cheaper. Make it much more expensive to pay the upfront cost when something happens. Again, this works. Been done already.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Yea, there are a lot of hoops to jump through. If people knew what went on in CCA, they would pitch a fit, but it's all hush hush. Someone recently died there becuse CCA didn't have enough people to take an inmate to the infirmary. It's sad.

You could probably make a case for the state running the prisons and I might agree, depends on how the private parties are chosen and how the assessment of prisoner conditions is conducted.
The bidding process is important too.

If the state is "hand in hand" with the privately run company, I'd object because there is to much room for abuse.

On the other hand, if the state is conducting rigorous, formal reviews of the system to check for compliance.
There isn't much of a problem.

Sometimes it's not all or nothing, other times it is.
We have to measure the relationship between the state and private entities, before we go making broad decisions on what programs are best funded through either collective or private measures.

 

[Ikari]

Yes. We already know it mostly works. Emergency services have actually done it in the past, successfully. But you didn't think of that. There certainly is an incentive to pay the insurance fee: it would be cheaper. Make it much more expensive to pay the upfront cost when something happens. Again, this works. Been done already.

The past is the past. Maybe in Franklin's day it worked. But if pay later worked well, we wouldn't have need of collection agencies and everyone would pay all they owed. But that's not the way the world works.

There is a lot of insurance to fire departments. A fire department now is incredibly expensive now, there's a lot there. We collectively pool our money to pay for it. And it works because not everyone's house burns down. Now if you went to a fee based system with pay later ability. There is no reason now for any given individual to pay that fee. Especially in the situation outlined in the OP. The fire department exists, it must have the capabilities of making it out there. You don't have to pay because the fire department has to come out. You can pay later. Which means you're removing the bit of aggregated funding. Which you didn't think of. Which will negatively impact the ability of the fire department, thus affecting all the others who pay taxes or the fees. No one exists in vacuum, no matter how much you want to treat it as such.

 

[RightinNYC]

And you miss the same point each time.

Except, that reasoning fails, because they were already negligent and put people's lives potentially at risk. Not putting out a fire, as they did, was refuting his own statement. Maybe you should work on being exceedingly accurate, instead of exceedngly clear.

No. Anyone could have been in the home as it was burning. The people could have been emotionally distrought, not thinking clearly, etc. That is frequently the case. Sitting outside and doing nothing because you think there is no one inside is already putting lives in jeopardy. That's what happened.

Yea, I'm sure that the family would have just forgot that their daughter was inside. Good point.

 

[Technocratic]

Yea, I'm sure that the family would have just forgot that their daughter was inside. Good point.

Actually, it is a good point, given the conditions of an emergency. People forget their kids in non-emergencies, much less when adrenalin is pumping and they are scared. People do not think, much less rationally, in high stress conditions. It wouldn't be the first time someone forgot someone inside. People forget their kids in cars, killing them. And that's when they are calm, lol.

For your "explanaiton" to have value, the firemen must have accurate certitude, as would the family. THat's not possible in high stress conditions and emergencies, thus his policy is inherently flawed. Regardless, not putting out a fire is a bad idea anyway, as it inherently endangers others by promoting a lax behaviour. There is a serious risk of finding dead kids later or the fire harming neighbors if the firemen don't address it immediately.

 

[Technocratic]

The past is the past. Maybe in Franklin's day it worked. But if pay later worked well, we wouldn't have need of collection agencies and everyone would pay all they owed. But that's not the way the world works.

There is a lot of insurance to fire departments. A fire department now is incredibly expensive now, there's a lot there. We collectively pool our money to pay for it. And it works because not everyone's house burns down. Now if you went to a fee based system with pay later ability. There is no reason now for any given individual to pay that fee. Especially in the situation outlined in the OP. The fire department exists, it must have the capabilities of making it out there. You don't have to pay because the fire department has to come out. You can pay later. Which means you're removing the bit of aggregated funding. Which you didn't think of. Which will negatively impact the ability of the fire department, thus affecting all the others who pay taxes or the fees. No one exists in vacuum, no matter how much you want to treat it as such.

I mostly agree with the points you have outlined above (here). I don't believe the system is optimal to charge afterward. Subscription is certainly better. As much as there are instances in which it worked, there are those in which the fire department go bankrupt because of that. Yes.

I also agree he was stupid, and unreasonable, for not paying the subscription. I don't think we should adopt that system, though. That's all. It is a failure of the system of government that allows that to happen, because it will always lead to bad results. Stupid people are stupid, and they endanger everyone.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Moderator's Warning:

There have been enough partisan insults about Libertarianism for one thread. Please confine your arguments to the issues, rather than psychological traits. Thank you.

 

[pbrauer]

Tennessee County’s Subscription-Based Firefighters Watch As Family Home Burns Down

It seems as though there was no 'socialist' fire department in this county.

In this rural section of Tennessee, Gene Cranick’s home caught on fire. As the Cranicks fled their home, their neighbors alerted the county’s firefighters, who soon arrived at the scene. Yet when the firefighters arrived, they refused to put out the fire, saying that the family failed to pay the annual subscription fee to the fire department. Because the county’s fire services for rural residences is based on household subscription fees, the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground:

Think Progress » Tennessee County’s Subscription-Based Firefighters Watch As Family Home Burns Down

 

[apdst]

Re: Tennessee County’s Subscription-Based Firefighters Watch As Family Home Burns Dow

If you want fire protection, you have to pay for it. It's the cost of doing business. Eh? The price for living in this great nation? What other Libbos talking point can I come up with?

Obviously, since there is a subscription fire department, then no one is paying taxes to fund the fire department.

 

[RedAkston]

Re: Tennessee County’s Subscription-Based Firefighters Watch As Family Home Burns Dow

Moderator's Warning:

Threads merged.

 

[Phoenix]

Firefighters watch as home burns to the ground | WPSD Local 6 - News, Sports, Weather - Paducah KY | Local

Easy to see how a private fire department model would work or...well not work. They will only put out the fires of the homes who pay, and if you don't pay, the firemen let your house burn down. :lol:

Being the faithful Libertarian rugged individuals they were, the residents tried to use their own personal Libertarian-Standard-issue Garden Hoses as the fee-contingent service stood by and watched.

Good old American Libertarian ethics. Inspiring creativity and ingenuity among the citizenry. That, and extortion. ONly when the fire went to a "paying customer" for that year, did the fighters put out the fire...in the field.

LoL.

Epic failure of the service model that a private business would use. The exact consequence everyone predicted would happen if it were adopted.

Where is epic fail? Libertarians (at least ones like myself) also understand that your actions have consequences.

This guy made poor choices.

• Buying/building a home in a county with no fire department
• Not paying the fee for a fire department that offers their services

As a result of his choices his home burned down.

This more a case study in stupidity and cheapskate instead of libertarians

 

[Gabriel]

Where is epic fail? Libertarians (at least ones like myself) also understand that your actions have consequences.

This guy made poor choices.

• Buying/building a home in a county with no fire department
• Not paying the fee for a fire department that offers their services

As a result of his choices his home burned down.

This more a case study in stupidity and cheapskate instead of libertarians

It is a microscopic libertarian example is all. Most people feel paying taxes ought to be good enough to have fire fighters come to put out the fire. But I suppose if you are wasting trillions of dollars in 3rd world foreign countries on pointless wars, it might be hard to find money for publicly funded firemen. Further a private company for profit will only cost more then a public arrangement that is fully funded for the same service.

 

[RedAkston]

It is a microscopic libertarian example is all. Most people feel paying taxes ought to be good enough to have fire fighters come to put out the fire. But I suppose if you are wasting trillions of dollars in 3rd world foreign countries on pointless wars, it might be hard to find money for publicly funded firemen. Further a private company for profit will only cost more then a public arrangement that is fully funded for the same service.

Someone doesn't have a grasp on federal vs. state vs. local taxes do they? And what on earth does the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan have to do with this story? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Try sticking to the topic will you?

 

[Gabriel]

Someone doesn't have a grasp on federal vs. state vs. local taxes do they? And what on earth does the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan have to do with this story? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Try sticking to the topic will you?

Like I said it is a microscopic picture of libertarianism. The analogy could be applied to education or healthcare.. all you have done is provided a nit pick.. Of course I can simply say your stonewalling the logic and playing partisan politics whilst being entirely correct. But I'm not interested playing with the bait. Have fun.

 

[Phoenix]

It is a microscopic libertarian example is all. Most people feel paying taxes ought to be good enough to have fire fighters come to put out the fire. But I suppose if you are wasting trillions of dollars in 3rd world foreign countries on pointless wars, it might be hard to find money for publicly funded firemen. Further a private company for profit will only cost more then a public arrangement that is fully funded for the same service.

• So should the city come out and fix my plumbing even though I have a well not city water?
• Last I checked city nor county government had armies or fought wars in foreign countries
• You are making baseless statements concerning costs. Public employees are paid more than private ones and profit is often replaced with bureaucracy in regards to costs

 

[desertdude]

I mostly agree with the points you have outlined above (here). I don't believe the system is optimal to charge afterward. Subscription is certainly better. As much as there are instances in which it worked, there are those in which the fire department go bankrupt because of that. Yes.

I also agree he was stupid, and unreasonable, for not paying the subscription. I don't think we should adopt that system, though. That's all. It is a failure of the system of government that allows that to happen, because it will always lead to bad results. Stupid people are stupid, and they endanger everyone.

Who did this guy endanger?