Libertarians vs The Fire Department - Page 3

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Libertarians vs The Fire Department (Page 3 of 5)

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:10:22 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
As a libertarian I have no issue with the fire department, as long as it isn't funded with federal dollars. Libertarians want a federal government that opperates stricty within the boundaries of the constitution. Local governemnts are free to offer whatever services that the voters approve. Government power is suppost to be concentrated closest to the people(local gov)

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Exactly. In Alaska's rural districts, you paid for fire protection, if you did not the Volunteer fire dept watched your house burn down. Seems simple to me.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:10:24 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
As long as they get their pot they don't care whether Fire Departments exist or not.

Or even whether their job is to put out fires or burn books.

It is all about the POT.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_DSBe3y9bUtg/SpncXDDFm7I/AAAAAAAACBI/3B036iPpp50/s800/MMI_Stitch_Logo_Circle_Badge_Transp_No_Canvas_120_x_120.png

http://www.havelshouseofhistory.com/Clifton,%20John%20Button%201.jpg

(Picture: Libertarian Party candidate Krista Zoobkoff outside her Canmore hemp store)

Yes, I do know.

But it still fits perfectly. A socialist is a socialist and a Libertarian is a Libertarian.

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/images/2008/09/25/krista_zoobkoff_2.jpg
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/sherrick13/Marijuanax1-2.jpg

I think FOR YOU it's all about the pot.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:11:15 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
A common thread among Libertarian detracters is that Libertarians do not support services like Police and Fire departments.

Please discuss the accuracy of this line of thought.

http://i.imgur.com/D7cNY.jpg

That cartoon is fucking stoopid.

Looks like the work of an Obama supporter...

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:13:18 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A common thread among Libertarian detracters is that Libertarians do not support services like Police and Fire departments.

Please discuss the accuracy of this line of thought.

http://i.imgur.com/D7cNY.jpg

That cartoon is fucking stoopid.

Looks like the work of an Obama supporter...

or a GOP supporter who works for the govt who likes stealng from productive people and doesnt want to lose his cushy job.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:13:21 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
I consider myself a Libertarian but work for the FD.

I see no conflict of interest. We have two paid departments in this city, one is private and the other is a City service. There is no comparison between the two.

Ben Franklin was instrumental in the creation of Fire Departments. While they were subscription based fire protection. You had your property marked, and when the firemen showed up, if you didn't subscribe to their service, the prevented the spread of fire to the homes of those who did. While your's burned to the ground.

Useless trivia here: The term hook and ladder came from the practice of fastening big rings to the peak of the roof for the "hook" to pull a burning structure down and away from it's neighbors.

I really like that idea. I would subscribe.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:14:24 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I've talked to other libertarians about how I've heard these crazy ass things... and even they admitted "yeah our ranks are filled with nutjobs"

there are nutjobs within any association, its just libertarians want to take away power from government thus we are bad and marginalized.

its why saying libertarians are whacky is just a whitewash.. its like dem's saying republicans are whacky cause some religious people want to murder gays. your doing the same thing DU does.

I used to be one of these Extremist-Libertarians... until I pulled my head out of my ass and realized I was insane. Now I'm just your run of the mill right-of-center conservative... who doesn't play around with romantic delusions of some epic battle against the Illuminati and some Federal Government that is painted as the EXACT same thing as Nazi Germany.

then stop trying to put down libertarians just becuase at one point you were a nutcase.

I'm mostly talking about the Anarcho-Capitalist "libertarian" camp... which MANY libertarians tend to lean towards. Even AYN RAND Was a friggin nutjob. She hated the very idea of even private charity

BULLCRAP!!! There is videos of her on youtube talking about charity that you can watch if you ever feel like it.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:14:55 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I freely admit that I am a conservative with SOME libertarianish views,... I just don't dare want to even associate myself with the word "libertarian" because of the association it gives me to lunatics.

dems say republicans are racist. do you like associating with racists?

If I observed evidence that they were correct, I would no longer consider my self Republican. Since their claims are without merit, I care not.

I was once a card carryinbg member of the Libertarian party, young and full of naive idealism like many Libertarians here now.

Then I grew up, got some life experience, and saw just what kind of idiots and morons I was associating with, and how lacking they were in any grasp of reality.

That, and I realized that the Libertarian Party was not one bit about trying to get anything done, and 100% about attention whoring and mental masterbation exercises.

On many domestic and social issues I am soldily libertarian in my leaning. But on matters of defense, immigration, and others I am definitly not. But no way I am going to hitch my wagon to their train of fools..

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:15:20 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:

. I have heard libertarians even argue in favor of indentured servitude!

An indentured servant was a worker, typically a laborer or tradesman, under contract to an employer for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for their transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities.(paid) so work in exchange for a form of payment.

Unlike slaves, an indentured servant was required to work only for a limited term specified in a signed contract.[1][2] Legal arrangements of this type have been extremely widespread throughout world history in different forms, and have had a number of specific names, and may overlap with the status of apprentice, debt slave, unfree labour, and other terms. Usually the status of indentured servant was entered into voluntarily by the servant.

Let me tally some things I've heard Libertarians argue.

1. Indentured Servitude should be legal.
2. RAPE should be legal (Because it doesn't really exist, you see)
3. Child abuse should be legal

4. Selling weapons KNOWINGLY to terrorists, murderers, and enemy regimes should be legal

5. Selling drugs to kids should be legal.

6. Only rich people deserve to be protected by the Police

7. Owning a NUCLEAR WEAPON should be legal!

8. Killing people simply for crossing your land should be legal.
9. Land mines should be legal, and it should also be legal to plant them on your property.
10. Polluting common public resources should be legal.

11. Killing one of your kids should be legal (YES EVEN BORN CHILDREN)

You have quite an imagination.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:15:45 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If that's their line of thinking, I'm thinking they may just be another group of fringe tards. Or I don't no what a Libertarian really is.

Know, you don't no what a Libertarian really is.

A lot of folks don't, including Libertarians themselves...

Not sure if serious...

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:16:44 AM EDT

[#10]

I"m not gonna lie. When I read this post title I thought it was librarian vs the fire department and I thought it was a Fahrenheit 451 reference.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:17:42 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A common thread among Libertarian detracters is that Libertarians do not support services like Police and Fire departments.

Please discuss the accuracy of this line of thought.

http://i.imgur.com/D7cNY.jpg

That cartoon is fucking stoopid.

Looks like the work of an Obama supporter...

or a GOP supporter who works for the govt who likes stealng from productive people and doesnt want to lose his cushy job.

True.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:20:28 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
I freely admit that I am a conservative with SOME libertarianish views,... I just don't dare want to even associate myself with the word "libertarian" because of the association it gives me to lunatics.

I feel the same way, about libertarian, conservative, and liberal, all are chock full of lunatics and carry connotations I don't want to associate myself with.

Libertarianism is going to draw the fringe as long as it's a fringe party, the brilliant and the morons both. For many people rejecting the mainstream political philosophies is the beginning of a process of reasoning out a coherent political philosophy of their own and that isn't an easy thing to do. The older libertarians I know, who've managed it, are generally the sanest people I've ever met, though there are exceptions.

Followers aren't any more sane for following mainstream fools than are independent thinkers who run the risk of their own foolishness.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:23:45 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
I freely admit that I am a conservative with SOME libertarianish views,... I just don't dare want to even associate myself with the word "libertarian" because of the association it gives me to lunatics.

You haven't considered the fact that your posting style and ridiculous "examples" in this thread alone are putting you firmly in the lunatic camp? Just something to consider for the next time you don't want to look like a fucking nutjob.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:24:36 AM EDT

[#14]

Are there really that many people who this stupid

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:26:59 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

. I have heard libertarians even argue in favor of indentured servitude!

An indentured servant was a worker, typically a laborer or tradesman, under contract to an employer for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for their transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities.(paid) so work in exchange for a form of payment.

Unlike slaves, an indentured servant was required to work only for a limited term specified in a signed contract.[1][2] Legal arrangements of this type have been extremely widespread throughout world history in different forms, and have had a number of specific names, and may overlap with the status of apprentice, debt slave, unfree labour, and other terms. Usually the status of indentured servant was entered into voluntarily by the servant

Let me tally some things I've heard Libertarians argue.

1. Indentured Servitude should be legal. Freely entered contract. What do you think the military is? What right do you have to indenture the servitude of people who had no choice in the matter? Often times the indentured servant brought along family, who may or may not have been willing to be a part of it. Children were ALSO sold into indentured servitude...

2. RAPE should be legal (Because it doesn't really exist, you see). Not freely entered contract, no libertarian could support that. In all due fairness, the guy who said that was VERY bitter towards women. So perhaps this one should not be counted.

3. Child abuse should be legal. Define abuse? There-in lies the rub. However, the protection of the innocent from violence from the powerful is one of the clearly defined responsibilities of government. No disagreement there.

4. Selling weapons KNOWINGLY to terrorists, murderers, and enemy regimes should be legal It is legal, by the government. They have done all three of these things completely legal. What rights do the government have to arm murderers terrorists and enemy regimes? Any right the government has to conduct free trade should be extended to the individual While I think the government SHOULD be more careful in who it sends arms too, just because our government does it, doesn't mean civilians should be allowed to do the same. The government also tries and executes criminals... Should I be allowed to capture criminals on my own, and set up a trial, and then execute them in my own private justice system? No....

5. Selling drugs to kids should be legal. Which drugs? Can't give out midol for fear of prison now in school. Alcohol? Tobacco? Ginseng route? Caffiene? All drugs, some legal, some not. Should we go to jail for selling a coke to a minor? You are giving a drug to them. You are honestly insane if your going to argue that theres no difference between selling acid to a kid and giving a child aspirin. One is an FDA approved over-the-counter medicine. The other is a harmful, addictive drug. I obviously do think our government goes overboard... what's your point

6. Only rich people deserve to be protected by the Police. No one is protected by the police. That is from the Supreme Court. The rich can pay for private security that the poor cannot. C'est le vie! What I meant, is that they believe there should be no police to keep the streets safe. Just security guards to keep the rich safe.

7. Owning a NUCLEAR WEAPON should be legal! [For those who could afford it, they could already have it. Make one yourself. This is the classic strawman for weapons. Once you give government the right to determine which weapons are acceptable are which are not, you tread a dangerous ground. People can own a smallpox biological sample now. Be more scared of that. You cannot honestly tell me, that if you can afford a nuclear bomb, it should be legal for you to do so. Just because someone can do something illegally, doesn't mean it should be legal. Arguing for the ownership of nuclear weapons, is the same as arguing for the right to use nuclear weapons and murder millions of citizens on a simple person's whim.

8. Killing people simply for crossing your land should be legal. If warning is given, respect people's property Killing someone simply for crossing your property line is a little extreme... don't you think?

9. Land mines should be legal, and it should also be legal to plant them on your property. Your property, and for those who don't intrude, they pose no risk. Rose bushes have thorns. Ban those? Rose bushes are highly visible, and don't cause instantaneous death. Landmines are hidden... What happens if a child wanders onto your property? What if the mailman comes? There are plenty of reasons that someone might have a LEGAL RIGHT to be on your property...This all falls under the idea that simple trespassing should NOT be a capital offense

10. Polluting common public resources should be legal. What is public? Land owned by the government? If your acts of polluting affect the rights of others, then that defaults to the responsiblities of government. You have intruded on others rights and society forms governments to stop that from happening. At least your one of the more sensible ones who thinks that there SHOULD be public land. Course, judging from some of your other responses, I'm not so sure how sensible you are.

11. Killing one of your kids should be legal. Back to defined rights. Protection from violence. Not saying many libertarians believe this... Again, I'm just listing all the crazy things that I've heard libertarians say.

That said. I'm not saying ALL libertarians are like that... but a disturbingly large amount of them ARE. I'd rather not associate myself with people like that. As for labels, we as a society have completely abandoned the term "liberal" because it was picked up by socialists and progressives... so whats the difference with abandoning the "libertarian" label, because it is increasingly being populated by nuts?

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:29:14 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
There's a sub-group of libertarians who believe these services should be private companies rather than government services.

They're actually pretty rare, tend to be young folks who haven't given it a lot of thought, a phenomenon that's not unique to libertarianism.

Interestingly one very common related issue among conservatives and libertarians is a dislike for property taxes, which is really the only fair way to fund a public fire service and works pretty well for police and schools as well.

This is one of the reasons the Libertarian party has so much trouble getting itself off the ground BTW, nobody really wants to do away with local services like fire, police, and schools, so it makes it difficult to build a party based on drastic reductions in government from the bottom up. Lots of libertarians really believe in federalism, want local government relatively strong compared to the federal, so shrinking local government is actually counterproductive.

Name one business that both government and private companies engage in where the government is the top performer..............

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:29:48 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

My gist I get from most libertarians is this... Give them all the pot they want (Soma) and they will GLADLY give up their guns.... and all the other rights they claim to care about.

Horse shit. I'm a libertarian and I know lots of em. Most of us have never even TRIED pot. Fuck anyone that tries to sweep the entirety of the libertarian philosophy into that old red herring. Sure we're against the drug war and all other forms of tyranny. We're also for freedom. Live and let live, etc. Your post is dishonest. You should be ashamed.

The pothead pussies that will roll over for anything as long as they get their drug fix are called "LIBERALS". Liberal does not equal Libertarian. It did back in Jefferson's day, but the folks wearing that label today have wiped their asses with it so much it doesn't mean the same thing any more.

Heck, he's got more red herrings at his disposal now it seems: apparently, we're now in favor of raping children while armed with nuclear weapons while deal them drugs and explain to them that 9/11 was an inside job. Then when we're done, we tell them that there are no Islamic terrorists, then we kill the kid with a land mine.

Ok... in my list, did I say "ALL libertarians believe the following". No... I merely have listed all the things I've heard libertarians say... and argue that it all somehow falls into the philosophy of libertarianism.

I consider myself a libertarian to an extent, but I'd rather just call myself a conservative... since I dont want people to think I favor complete drug legalization and a total withdrawl (sp?) from the war on terror.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:31:42 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I freely admit that I am a conservative with SOME libertarianish views,... I just don't dare want to even associate myself with the word "libertarian" because of the association it gives me to lunatics.

dems say republicans are racist. do you like associating with racists?

Absolutely not. I find their claims to be unfounded... and ultimately racist in itself. Dems argue that blacks, hispanics, etc ... are somehow incapable of making it on their own and need more government assistance to help them.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:34:40 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I freely admit that I am a conservative with SOME libertarianish views,... I just don't dare want to even associate myself with the word "libertarian" because of the association it gives me to lunatics.

dems say republicans are racist. do you like associating with racists?

If I observed evidence that they were correct, I would no longer consider my self Republican. Since their claims are without merit, I care not.

I was once a card carryinbg member of the Libertarian party, young and full of naive idealism like many Libertarians here now.

Then I grew up, got some life experience, and saw just what kind of idiots and morons I was associating with, and how lacking they were in any grasp of reality.

That, and I realized that the Libertarian Party was not one bit about trying to get anything done, and 100% about attention whoring and mental masterbation exercises.

On many domestic and social issues I am soldily libertarian in my leaning. But on matters of defense, immigration, and others I am definitly not. But no way I am going to hitch my wagon to their train of fools..

Finally another voice of reason.

Someone comes in here and tells me how its every citizen's right to own a nuclear bomb... and yet I'm the one who's called a moron

. Gee if I was Al Qaeda, and knew it was perfectly legal to own a nuclear bomb in America... I'd just have one built there and activate it the moment its finished.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:34:59 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:

. I have heard libertarians even argue in favor of indentured servitude!

An indentured servant was a worker, typically a laborer or tradesman, under contract to an employer for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for their transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities.(paid) so work in exchange for a form of payment.

Unlike slaves, an indentured servant was required to work only for a limited term specified in a signed contract.[1][2] Legal arrangements of this type have been extremely widespread throughout world history in different forms, and have had a number of specific names, and may overlap with the status of apprentice, debt slave, unfree labour, and other terms. Usually the status of indentured servant was entered into voluntarily by the servant.

Let me tally some things I've heard Libertarians argue.

1. Indentured Servitude should be legal.

2. RAPE should be legal (Because it doesn't really exist, you see)

3. Child abuse should be legal

4. Selling weapons KNOWINGLY to terrorists, murderers, and enemy regimes should be legal

5. Selling drugs to kids should be legal.

6. Only rich people deserve to be protected by the Police

7. Owning a NUCLEAR WEAPON should be legal!

8. Killing people simply for crossing your land should be legal.

9. Land mines should be legal, and it should also be legal to plant them on your property.

10. Polluting common public resources should be legal.

11. Killing one of your kids should be legal (YES EVEN BORN CHILDREN)

You have quite an imagination.

If only I had a voice recorder....

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:35:28 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I freely admit that I am a conservative with SOME libertarianish views,... I just don't dare want to even associate myself with the word "libertarian" because of the association it gives me to lunatics.

dems say republicans are racist. do you like associating with racists?

Absolutely not. I find their claims to be unfounded... and ultimately racist in itself. Dems argue that blacks, hispanics, etc ... are somehow incapable of making it on their own and need more government assistance to help them.

your claims that libertarians are potheads etc is no better.
i know republicans that wanted to kill all gays.. that doesnt make me go around saying that most republicns i know just want to kill gays and dont care about any other rights except to kill gays..

its just wrong

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:38:00 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

There's a sub-group of libertarians who believe these services should be private companies rather than government services.

They're actually pretty rare, tend to be young folks who haven't given it a lot of thought, a phenomenon that's not unique to libertarianism.

Interestingly one very common related issue among conservatives and libertarians is a dislike for property taxes, which is really the only fair way to fund a public fire service and works pretty well for police and schools as well.

This is one of the reasons the Libertarian party has so much trouble getting itself off the ground BTW, nobody really wants to do away with local services like fire, police, and schools, so it makes it difficult to build a party based on drastic reductions in government from the bottom up. Lots of libertarians really believe in federalism, want local government relatively strong compared to the federal, so shrinking local government is actually counterproductive.

Name one business that both government and private companies engage in where the government is the top performer..............

Military

Roads

Police

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:38:45 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Hmm I can go on.

12. 9/11 was an inside job

13. There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism or Islamic tyranny in other countries. ALL Muslims love Christians and tolerate everyone!

All those terror attacks are REALLY just false flag terror ops carried out by the Mossad!

14. America deserved 9/11

15. And oddly enough I have heard "Christian" libertarians at the same time argue that Darwin was an idiot, and then preach about survival of the fittest

16. THAT THE HOLOCAUST IS A HOAX!

You are either the dumbest person on this board or a troll.
Libertarians are all pacifist truthers and holocaust deniers?

If someday you have cogent thought lets us know

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:41:09 AM EDT

[#24]

Philosophy of Liberty

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:41:56 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Philosophy of Liberty

i love this video..

please people.. are these concepts hard to understand?

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:42:17 AM EDT

[#26]

Privatization of the fire department would be an interesting social experiment I'd like to see tried on a small scale somewhere.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:43:38 AM EDT

[#27]

Sometimes we put way too much thought into stupid shit. I like my FD the way it is. I think I'll just stay a Republican for now...

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:43:49 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
I've talked to other libertarians about how I've heard these crazy ass things... and even they admitted "yeah our ranks are filled with nutjobs"

When compared to the christian right or Marxist left? No more than the norm. Libertarians in my experience simply wish to be left alone in most cases, not a quality shared by the aforementioned factions.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:44:01 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There's a sub-group of libertarians who believe these services should be private companies rather than government services.

They're actually pretty rare, tend to be young folks who haven't given it a lot of thought, a phenomenon that's not unique to libertarianism.

Interestingly one very common related issue among conservatives and libertarians is a dislike for property taxes, which is really the only fair way to fund a public fire service and works pretty well for police and schools as well.

This is one of the reasons the Libertarian party has so much trouble getting itself off the ground BTW, nobody really wants to do away with local services like fire, police, and schools, so it makes it difficult to build a party based on drastic reductions in government from the bottom up. Lots of libertarians really believe in federalism, want local government relatively strong compared to the federal, so shrinking local government is actually counterproductive.

Name one business that both government and private companies engage in where the government is the top performer..............

Military
Roads

Police

The police are pathetic.
They bitch and cry about needing more money all the time but are never willing to do more for it.
Get a private sector job,do it badly and when your boss tries to fire you tell him it's his fault for not paying you enough.....then report back.

Roads are ALL built by private contractors.

The military would beg to differ......they wear government around their necks like a mill stone.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:46:00 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Let them Opt out.

We do it in a portion of our fire district. Once you hit a certain mile marker outside of town, you have the option to pay the tax for fire services. Dispatch keeps the address of the houses that paid the tax. If that house catches on fire, we respond. If they did not pay the tax. Well, they are on their own.

We will usually respond to prevent forrest fire, or surrounding structures from burning. But we bail as soon as the the department of forrestry shows up.

fwiw, the amount these people save on tax, they probably pay ten times the amount in raised home insurance. It is also a ways out of town. Probably eight miles. So by the time the first engine starts spraying water, the house is pretty far gone.

ETA, if there is a life safety issue. The department will respond to try to save the life. But some people have figured this out, and once its been confirmed that no life safety issue exists. We will mitigate the risks to exposures.
Kind of frustrating for the FF on the nozzle.

There's a problem with the "pay to spray" plan.

There was a situation (IIRC from TX) where the FD which operated a "subscription" service arrived on location of a house fire and let it burn, because the address came back to a non-subscriber.

Unfortunately after the fire was out they discovered that the neighboring property was the one that had not paid the fee, and the property they let burn was in fact paid in full.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:47:52 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Let them Opt out.

We do it in a portion of our fire district. Once you hit a certain mile marker outside of town, you have the option to pay the tax for fire services. Dispatch keeps the address of the houses that paid the tax. If that house catches on fire, we respond. If they did not pay the tax. Well, they are on their own.

We will usually respond to prevent forrest fire, or surrounding structures from burning. But we bail as soon as the the department of forrestry shows up.

fwiw, the amount these people save on tax, they probably pay ten times the amount in raised home insurance. It is also a ways out of town. Probably eight miles. So by the time the first engine starts spraying water, the house is pretty far gone.

ETA, if there is a life safety issue. The department will respond to try to save the life. But some people have figured this out, and once its been confirmed that no life safety issue exists. We will mitigate the risks to exposures.
Kind of frustrating for the FF on the nozzle.

There's a problem with the "pay to spray" plan.

There was a situation (IIRC from TX) where the FD which operated a "subscription" service arrived on location of a house fire and let it burn, because the address came back to a non-subscriber.

Unfortunately after the fire was out they discovered that the neighboring property was the one that had not paid the fee, and the property they let burn was in fact paid in full.

Fire Department gets sued.. they need to buy insurance so when they fuck up so they can pay the owner or go out of business.

mistakes happen in the real world all the time. govt make mistakes too they break into wrong house and shoot owners.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:48:24 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

1. Indentured Servitude should be legal. Freely entered contract. What do you think the military is?
2. RAPE should be legal (Because it doesn't really exist, you see). Not freely entered contract, no libertarian could support that.
3. Child abuse should be legal. Define abuse? There-in lies the rub. However, the protection of the innocent from violence from the powerful is one of the clearly defined responsibilities of government.
4. Selling weapons KNOWINGLY to terrorists, murderers, and enemy regimes should be legal It is legal, by the government. They have done all three of these things completely legal. What rights do the government have to arm murderers terrorists and enemy regimes? Any right the government has to conduct free trade should be extended to the individual
5. Selling drugs to kids should be legal. Which drugs? Can't give out midol for fear of prison now in school. Alcohol? Tobacco? Ginseng route? Caffiene? All drugs, some legal, some not. Should we go to jail for selling a coke to a minor? You are giving a drug to them.
6. Only rich people deserve to be protected by the Police. No one is protected by the police. That is from the Supreme Court. The rich can pay for private security that the poor cannot. C'est le vie!
7. Owning a NUCLEAR WEAPON should be legal! [For those who could afford it, they could already have it. Make one yourself. This is the classic strawman for weapons. Once you give government the right to determine which weapons are acceptable are which are not, you tread a dangerous ground. People can own a smallpox biological sample now. Be more scared of that.8. Killing people simply for crossing your land should be legal. If warning is given, respect people's property
9. Land mines should be legal, and it should also be legal to plant them on your property. Your property, and for those who don't intrude, they pose no risk. Rose bushes have thorns. Ban those?.
10. Polluting common public resources should be legal. What is public? Land owned by the government? If your acts of polluting affect the rights of others, then that defaults to the responsibilities of government. You have intruded on others rights and society forms governments to stop that from happening.
11. Killing one of your kids should be legal. Back to defined rights. Protection from violence.

well done

i really dont understand why people do not understand such concepts, are they incapable or just refuse to use reason?

Both.

Very well done and explained but ultimately pointless if the other party will not see reason. Some people you just cannot reach.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:51:10 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Hmm I can go on.

12. 9/11 was an inside job

13. There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism or Islamic tyranny in other countries. ALL Muslims love Christians and tolerate everyone!

All those terror attacks are REALLY just false flag terror ops carried out by the Mossad!

14. America deserved 9/11

15. And oddly enough I have heard "Christian" libertarians at the same time argue that Darwin was an idiot, and then preach about survival of the fittest

16. THAT THE HOLOCAUST IS A HOAX!

You are either the dumbest person on this board or a troll.

Libertarians are all pacifist truthers and holocaust deniers?

If someday you have cogent thought lets us know

Yeah... thats right... thats EXACTLY what i said... i guess you forgot the part where I said "Heres a list of things I've heard libertarians say".

Too be fair most of these people fell more firmly into the Anarcho-capitalist camp.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:54:12 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
There's a sub-group of libertarians who believe these services should be private companies rather than government services.

They're actually pretty rare, tend to be young folks who haven't given it a lot of thought, a phenomenon that's not unique to libertarianism.

Interestingly one very common related issue among conservatives and libertarians is a dislike for property taxes, which is really the only fair way to fund a public fire service and works pretty well for police and schools as well.

This is one of the reasons the Libertarian party has so much trouble getting itself off the ground BTW, nobody really wants to do away with local services like fire, police, and schools, so it makes it difficult to build a party based on drastic reductions in government from the bottom up. Lots of libertarians really believe in federalism, want local government relatively strong compared to the federal, so shrinking local government is actually counterproductive.

Name one business that both government and private companies engage in where the government is the top performer..............

I've already acknowledged that post was poorly worded and didn't express my meaning, and clarified it. I don't have any problem with private services, it's just that the subtleties of varying competing rights in matters of fire and life safety, building codes and so on are often lost on a certain variety of libertarian and it often contributes to a negative perception of libertarianism.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:54:40 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Let them Opt out.

We do it in a portion of our fire district. Once you hit a certain mile marker outside of town, you have the option to pay the tax for fire services. Dispatch keeps the address of the houses that paid the tax. If that house catches on fire, we respond. If they did not pay the tax. Well, they are on their own.

We will usually respond to prevent forrest fire, or surrounding structures from burning. But we bail as soon as the the department of forrestry shows up.
fwiw, the amount these people save on tax, they probably pay ten times the amount in raised home insurance. It is also a ways out of town. Probably eight miles. So by the time the first engine starts spraying water, the house is pretty far gone.

ETA, if there is a life safety issue. The department will respond to try to save the life. But some people have figured this out, and once its been confirmed that no life safety issue exists. We will mitigate the risks to exposures.

Kind of frustrating for the FF on the nozzle.

There's a problem with the "pay to spray" plan.

There was a situation (IIRC from TX) where the FD which operated a "subscription" service arrived on location of a house fire and let it burn, because the address came back to a non-subscriber.

Unfortunately after the fire was out they discovered that the neighboring property was the one that had not paid the fee, and the property they let burn was in fact paid in full.

In that case, they would probably be required to pay for the damages... If you pay for a service, and that service is not rendered,... and the lack of that service causes great harm to you or your property, then they MUST reimburse you.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:55:35 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Let them Opt out.

We do it in a portion of our fire district. Once you hit a certain mile marker outside of town, you have the option to pay the tax for fire services. Dispatch keeps the address of the houses that paid the tax. If that house catches on fire, we respond. If they did not pay the tax. Well, they are on their own.

We will usually respond to prevent forrest fire, or surrounding structures from burning. But we bail as soon as the the department of forrestry shows up.
fwiw, the amount these people save on tax, they probably pay ten times the amount in raised home insurance. It is also a ways out of town. Probably eight miles. So by the time the first engine starts spraying water, the house is pretty far gone.

ETA, if there is a life safety issue. The department will respond to try to save the life. But some people have figured this out, and once its been confirmed that no life safety issue exists. We will mitigate the risks to exposures.

Kind of frustrating for the FF on the nozzle.

There's a problem with the "pay to spray" plan.

There was a situation (IIRC from TX) where the FD which operated a "subscription" service arrived on location of a house fire and let it burn, because the address came back to a non-subscriber.

Unfortunately after the fire was out they discovered that the neighboring property was the one that had not paid the fee, and the property they let burn was in fact paid in full.

Fire Department gets sued.. they need to buy insurance so when they fuck up so they can pay the owner or go out of business.

mistakes happen in the real world all the time. govt make mistakes too they break into wrong house and shoot owners.

The solution is to get rid of this idea that they are our masters, and that they should be held accountable for their crimes/mistakes. Sooo I agree with you there.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:56:29 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

There's a sub-group of libertarians who believe these services should be private companies rather than government services.

They're actually pretty rare, tend to be young folks who haven't given it a lot of thought, a phenomenon that's not unique to libertarianism.

Interestingly one very common related issue among conservatives and libertarians is a dislike for property taxes, which is really the only fair way to fund a public fire service and works pretty well for police and schools as well.

This is one of the reasons the Libertarian party has so much trouble getting itself off the ground BTW, nobody really wants to do away with local services like fire, police, and schools, so it makes it difficult to build a party based on drastic reductions in government from the bottom up. Lots of libertarians really believe in federalism, want local government relatively strong compared to the federal, so shrinking local government is actually counterproductive.

Name one business that both government and private companies engage in where the government is the top performer..............

I've already acknowledged that post was poorly worded and didn't express my meaning, and clarified it. I don't have any problem with private services, it's just that the subtleties of varying competing rights in matters of fire and life safety, building codes and so on are often lost on a certain variety of libertarian and it often contributes to a negative perception of libertarianism.

+1 this

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:57:27 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Interestingly one very common related issue among conservatives and libertarians is a dislike for property taxes, which is really the only fair way to fund a public fire service and works pretty well for police and schools as well.

Property taxes fair???? That's fucking funny. Remind me how much property taxes people that live in apartments pay to support the education system they use and the police and fire protection they use. Property taxes are nothing more than another method of enslaving those who have worked for something and redistributing their wealth. A fair method would be a county or a city tax, You live in this city you pay this tax for these services.

Posted: 4/15/2010 10:59:36 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Interestingly one very common related issue among conservatives and libertarians is a dislike for property taxes, which is really the only fair way to fund a public fire service and works pretty well for police and schools as well.

Property taxes fair???? That's fucking funny. Remind me how much property taxes people that live in apartments pay to support the education system they use and the police and fire protection they use. Property taxes are nothing more than another method of enslaving those who have worked for something and redistributing their wealth. A fair method would be a county or a city tax, You live in this city you pay this tax for these services.

If you don't think property taxes affects the cost of rent... your wrong. That's like saying that we, as consumers, don't pay sales taxes. It all gets passed on to the consumer/renter

Posted: 4/15/2010 11:01:07 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
I know i'm not against property taxes, I'm against HIGH property taxes.

I pay for public schools, that I will never ever send my children to. Our school has a miserable graduation rate, so am I really seeing ANY benefit to my taxes? We also have a library that is spending $7m to 'upgrade' their facility , for a town of only 12,000 people.

If the library has a particularly high rate of utilization then this is necessary to support operations. For some reason I doubt that this is the case. Would I be right?

Posted: 4/15/2010 11:01:35 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Interestingly one very common related issue among conservatives and libertarians is a dislike for property taxes, which is really the only fair way to fund a public fire service and works pretty well for police and schools as well.

Property taxes fair???? That's fucking funny. Remind me how much property taxes people that live in apartments pay to support the education system they use and the police and fire protection they use. Property taxes are nothing more than another method of enslaving those who have worked for something and redistributing their wealth. A fair method would be a county or a city tax, You live in this city you pay this tax for these services.

Really not that different from property taxes. Property taxes is something that pretty much everyone has to pay directly or indirectly.

Posted: 4/15/2010 11:01:46 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Interestingly one very common related issue among conservatives and libertarians is a dislike for property taxes, which is really the only fair way to fund a public fire service and works pretty well for police and schools as well.

Property taxes fair???? That's fucking funny. Remind me how much property taxes people that live in apartments pay to support the education system they use and the police and fire protection they use. Property taxes are nothing more than another method of enslaving those who have worked for something and redistributing their wealth. A fair method would be a county or a city tax, You live in this city you pay this tax for these services.

I think the landlord covers that. One "Durp" for you! Three "Durps" and you're a libertari...... Nevermind.

Posted: 4/15/2010 11:02:32 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I know i'm not against property taxes, I'm against HIGH property taxes.

I pay for public schools, that I will never ever send my children to. Our school has a miserable graduation rate, so am I really seeing ANY benefit to my taxes? We also have a library that is spending $7m to 'upgrade' their facility , for a town of only 12,000 people.

If the library has a particularly high rate of utilization then this is necessary to support operations. For some reason I doubt that this is the case. Would I be right?

It's probably corruption, union labor, and lack of oversight that causes these relatively simply operations to cost small fortunes.

Posted: 4/15/2010 11:04:11 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
I know i'm not against property taxes, I'm against HIGH property taxes.

I pay for public schools, that I will never ever send my children to. Our school has a miserable graduation rate, so am I really seeing ANY benefit to my taxes? We also have a library that is spending $7m to 'upgrade' their facility , for a town of only 12,000 people.

If the library has a particularly high rate of utilization then this is necessary to support operations. For some reason I doubt that this is the case. Would I be right?

Posted: 4/15/2010 11:05:12 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Interestingly one very common related issue among conservatives and libertarians is a dislike for property taxes, which is really the only fair way to fund a public fire service and works pretty well for police and schools as well.

Property taxes fair???? That's fucking funny. Remind me how much property taxes people that live in apartments pay to support the education system they use and the police and fire protection they use. Property taxes are nothing more than another method of enslaving those who have worked for something and redistributing their wealth. A fair method would be a county or a city tax, You live in this city you pay this tax for these services.

You fail at economics. Quite obviously you have never run a business.

The property owner pays the taxes, and the adds the cost of those taxes into the rent. The renters do pay the tax, it just gets run through the property owner first. Just like in my store when I get charged higher taxes/utilities/etc, I have to pass that on to my customers.

Posted: 4/15/2010 11:13:28 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:

There's a sub-group of libertarians who believe these services should be private companies rather than government services.

They're actually pretty rare, tend to be young folks who haven't given it a lot of thought, a phenomenon that's not unique to libertarianism.

Interestingly one very common related issue among conservatives and libertarians is a dislike for property taxes, which is really the only fair way to fund a public fire service and works pretty well for police and schools as well.

This is one of the reasons the Libertarian party has so much trouble getting itself off the ground BTW, nobody really wants to do away with local services like fire, police, and schools, so it makes it difficult to build a party based on drastic reductions in government from the bottom up. Lots of libertarians really believe in federalism, want local government relatively strong compared to the federal, so shrinking local government is actually counterproductive.

How about we argue the logic rather than just attacking the arguer as not having thought it through? Fire and rescue are services. If you want to procure goods and services, BY FAR the most reliable and efficient sector to go to is the private (for profit) sector. Greed brings out the best in people when they satisfy it by honest trade.

That being so, most of us still buy those services through tax funded organizations. I don't know why that is. Taxes are used by the department, to pay individual firemen (who are in effect, one man businesses) to fight fires. Is there some reason you can't hire a company to do what you can hire a politician and a bunch of bureaucrats to fuck up?

Libertarians tend to bet that in most cases, a given dollar input will buy more and better stuff from a business than it will from a bureaucrat. That doesn't stop at cops and firemen unless you can show me a concrete reason why it should.

The reason, is that a fire in a building that belongs to someone who cannot afford to pay, or that is abandoned, is still a threat to every other surrounding building.

Same applies to crime-control (police) - criminals should not expect to 'get away with it' easier if their victims are confined to those who can't afford to hire good police services...

Some things really ARE public goods.

Military, fire & police services, and the justice system would be examples.

Posted: 4/15/2010 11:15:27 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

There's a sub-group of libertarians who believe these services should be private companies rather than government services.

They're actually pretty rare, tend to be young folks who haven't given it a lot of thought, a phenomenon that's not unique to libertarianism.

Interestingly one very common related issue among conservatives and libertarians is a dislike for property taxes, which is really the only fair way to fund a public fire service and works pretty well for police and schools as well.

This is one of the reasons the Libertarian party has so much trouble getting itself off the ground BTW, nobody really wants to do away with local services like fire, police, and schools, so it makes it difficult to build a party based on drastic reductions in government from the bottom up. Lots of libertarians really believe in federalism, want local government relatively strong compared to the federal, so shrinking local government is actually counterproductive.

How about we argue the logic rather than just attacking the arguer as not having thought it through? Fire and rescue are services. If you want to procure goods and services, BY FAR the most reliable and efficient sector to go to is the private (for profit) sector. Greed brings out the best in people when they satisfy it by honest trade.

That being so, most of us still buy those services through tax funded organizations. I don't know why that is. Taxes are used by the department, to pay individual firemen (who are in effect, one man businesses) to fight fires. Is there some reason you can't hire a company to do what you can hire a politician and a bunch of bureaucrats to fuck up?

Libertarians tend to bet that in most cases, a given dollar input will buy more and better stuff from a business than it will from a bureaucrat. That doesn't stop at cops and firemen unless you can show me a concrete reason why it should.

The reason, is that a fire in a building that belongs to someone who cannot afford to pay, or that is abandoned, is still a threat to every other surrounding building.

Same applies to crime-control (police) - criminals should not expect to 'get away with it' easier if their victims are confined to those who can't afford to hire good police services...

Some things really ARE public goods.

Military, fire & police services, and the justice system would be examples.

UGH! Stop agreeing with me!

Posted: 4/15/2010 11:25:07 AM EDT

[#48]

Police
Military
Courts

Aside from enforcing law and order, everything else can be privatized

Posted: 4/15/2010 11:30:12 AM EDT

[#49]

Private fire companies, available by subscription. Probably rolled into your homeowner's insurance. MUCH higher rates for "will-call" users. Remember you're liable for damages to your neighbor's property from your burning out-of-control house, so simply letting it burn out may not be an attractive option.

One beneficial effect: this would put an end to cutting fire dept. budgets to fund midnight basketball... unless you found individuals who valued basketball over not having their houses burn down.

This would also be beneficial for those of us who live in essentially unburnable, concrete and steel houses. We will no longer have to subsidize those who live in wood framed houses with wood shingle kindling roofs.

Natural enemies of this plan:

1. Politicians who like to control every aspect of the community they can
2. People who live in kindling houses and enjoy an out-sized benefit from taxpayer funded fire protection
3. Unions of government employed firefighters who would rather not work in the free market, but rely on government force to take money from taxpayers, regardless of the value (or not) of their programs
4. People who believe everyone in the world wants, or at least needs to be taken care of by Big Government

how it would really work out:

Just like health insurance, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would buy fire dept. services. I suspect the cost would be more-or-less what you're paying for the fire department presently through your taxes (weigh the anticipated profits of the fire company versus the natural waste and inefficiency of anything run by the Government–– I believe the Libertarian assumption is that private will be better and cheaper)

The poor wouldn't buy it, simply because they don't have too much money, and really now, that second X-Box 360 is more important anyhow... poor neighborhoods would be ravaged with frequent fires, the little deadbeats would be almost impossible to collect any damages from. If a fire company did respond, their bill would be ignored. Since lazy people are often poor as a natural consequence of their being lazy, there is a good chance that your lazy neighbors would view your burning home like a grandiose version of bug-zapper entertainment, and watch as it is consumed. The hard-working poor will quickly become un-poor, and move to decent neighborhoods where all the decent people buy fire department insurance.

You don't want to be poor in Libertarianville, that's for sure. Unless you had a really convincing disability and could garner some charity, you'd be in for a tough ride.

And whats wrong with it being a tough ride? Life is tough. Who says it's supposed to be easy? You want upward mobility? You will find a way by working hard and getting out of bad situations. As for the poor who won't improve their situation, how is it any different from now, where they murder, rob, kill commit arson agianst their own neighbors and family?

Posted: 4/15/2010 11:41:24 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
As long as they get their pot they don't care whether Fire Departments exist or not.

Or even whether their job is to put out fires or burn books.

It is all about the POT.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_DSBe3y9bUtg/SpncXDDFm7I/AAAAAAAACBI/3B036iPpp50/s800/MMI_Stitch_Logo_Circle_Badge_Transp_No_Canvas_120_x_120.png

http://www.havelshouseofhistory.com/Clifton,%20John%20Button%201.jpg

(Picture: Libertarian Party candidate Krista Zoobkoff outside her Canmore hemp store)

Yes, I do know.

But it still fits perfectly. A socialist is a socialist and a Libertarian is a Libertarian.

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/images/2008/09/25/krista_zoobkoff_2.jpg
http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb171/sherrick13/Marijuanax1-2.jpg

I'm a Libertarian and it's not all about the pot. That's exactly the same as saying "Republicans, it's all about the guns. Let them keep thier guns and they don't give a shit if we have Cuba style health care or a swedish style tax system". It is utter non-sense. It is true enough that some republicans are one issue voters ("gun nuts") and some libertarians are one issue voters ("pot heads"). By some I mean a minority. Just as not all republicans dont own guns or think the NFA should be repealed, not all libertarians smoke pot (though by definition, none of them are likely interested in the federal government intervening if their neighbor wants to smoke pot).

To answer the OP, I'm not opposed to a city fire department so long as it can be funded without making citizens pay rent for their own property or having their personal wages pilfered.

Quoted:
My gist I get from most libertarians is this... Give them all the pot they want (Soma) and they will GLADLY give up their guns.... and all the other rights they claim to care about.

Since one of my main incentives to not smoke pot is my not wanting to lose my guns over it, I think your theory needs work.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Libertarians vs The Fire Department (Page 3 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us