Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

For Ragnar:

Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:27:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 3:26:15 AM, Korashk wrote:
OBION COUNTY, Tenn. - Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won't respond, then watches it burn. That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight.

A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.

Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.
http://www.wpsdlocal6.com...

The rest of the article is in the link. I figured that Ragnar would enjoy it, and it will instigate a discussion about the merits of a user-fee system.

Moved from News for attention.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:40:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sounds like it all worked out okay then, since it didn't say the neighbor's property burned down (though a better policy is to put it out before it spreads, but to do so in a way that completely disregards/actively damages the nonpayer's property. Assuming one wants to measure firefighting against a fee, it's a small and unusual enough case that a government could just up and provide it to preempt hassles that could get in the way of police fee collection, as a cost of doing business much like the military except smaller).

There is that little matter of an assault on a firefighter, but that can be dealt with as one deals with any other thug.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:00:04 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ah counties, the most efficient way to provide goods and services (seriously why didnt they just write him a $1000 bill?)
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:34:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:40:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Sounds like it all worked out okay then, since it didn't say the neighbor's property burned down (though a better policy is to put it out before it spreads, but to do so in a way that completely disregards/actively damages the nonpayer's property. Assuming one wants to measure firefighting against a fee, it's a small and unusual enough case that a government could just up and provide it to preempt hassles that could get in the way of police fee collection, as a cost of doing business much like the military except smaller).

that's so heartless. and pointless. with the number of fires in given year that the department puts out they should be able to put out any fire without finances loss. in other words they can afford to spare the water on this house.

superman should not keep track of peoples bills to decide to save people, he should just do it. its the nature of what volunteer work is.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:36:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The (faulty) logic of the firefighters is that he had to be made example of in order to maintain their (terrible) business model. So if they had let him just pay the free retroactively on the spot, no one would pay the fee up front and just wait till their house was on fire, and then pay. Which would dry up a ton of the fire depts revenue... again why I think its a really stupid and uncreative business plan.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 9:54:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 9:36:38 AM, Sieben wrote:
The (faulty) logic of the firefighters is that he had to be made example of in order to maintain their (terrible) business model. So if they had let him just pay the free retroactively on the spot, no one would pay the fee up front and just wait till their house was on fire, and then pay. Which would dry up a ton of the fire depts revenue... again why I think its a really stupid and uncreative business plan.

This. If you know you just had to pay if something went wrong, then no one would pay into the insurance or whatever.
I think they should have charged them however much they hadn't paid for the time they were 18+ years old, for each adult.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 11:07:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 9:34:43 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:40:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Sounds like it all worked out okay then, since it didn't say the neighbor's property burned down (though a better policy is to put it out before it spreads, but to do so in a way that completely disregards/actively damages the nonpayer's property. Assuming one wants to measure firefighting against a fee, it's a small and unusual enough case that a government could just up and provide it to preempt hassles that could get in the way of police fee collection, as a cost of doing business much like the military except smaller).

that's so heartless. and pointless. with the number of fires in given year that the department puts out they should be able to put out any fire without finances loss. in other words they can afford to spare the water on this house.
That doesn't make any sense as an out of context absolute. Who would pay them if they did that? (other than, again, the organization that thinks it's a good way to maintain an investment in police jurisdiction).

So if they had let him just pay the free retroactively on the spot, no one would pay the fee up front
Technically, it's feasible, though not necessarily recommendable, to have the option to pay a MUCH HIGHER fee retroactively than it would have been had they not paid up front.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 11:25:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 11:07:46 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/5/2010 9:34:43 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:40:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Sounds like it all worked out okay then, since it didn't say the neighbor's property burned down (though a better policy is to put it out before it spreads, but to do so in a way that completely disregards/actively damages the nonpayer's property. Assuming one wants to measure firefighting against a fee, it's a small and unusual enough case that a government could just up and provide it to preempt hassles that could get in the way of police fee collection, as a cost of doing business much like the military except smaller).

that's so heartless. and pointless. with the number of fires in given year that the department puts out they should be able to put out any fire without finances loss. in other words they can afford to spare the water on this house.
That doesn't make any sense as an out of context absolute. Who would pay them if they did that? (other than, again, the organization that thinks it's a good way to maintain an investment in police jurisdiction).

from the fire departments spaghetti dinners. town comes, enjoys food for a $5.00 ticket and donates whatever else there hearts are content to do, or even purchases raffle tickets there at the spaghetti supper. That's how they pay for there materials. the fighters themselves are volunteers.
really easy, nothing complicated to it. and it works.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 11:34:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:40:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
do so in a way that completely disregards/actively damages the nonpayer's property.

Initiation of force? Violation of property rights?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 11:37:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 11:25:42 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 10/5/2010 11:07:46 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/5/2010 9:34:43 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:40:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Sounds like it all worked out okay then, since it didn't say the neighbor's property burned down (though a better policy is to put it out before it spreads, but to do so in a way that completely disregards/actively damages the nonpayer's property. Assuming one wants to measure firefighting against a fee, it's a small and unusual enough case that a government could just up and provide it to preempt hassles that could get in the way of police fee collection, as a cost of doing business much like the military except smaller).

that's so heartless. and pointless. with the number of fires in given year that the department puts out they should be able to put out any fire without finances loss. in other words they can afford to spare the water on this house.
That doesn't make any sense as an out of context absolute. Who would pay them if they did that? (other than, again, the organization that thinks it's a good way to maintain an investment in police jurisdiction).

from the fire departments spaghetti dinners. town comes, enjoys food for a $5.00 ticket and donates whatever else there hearts are content to do, or even purchases raffle tickets there at the spaghetti supper. That's how they pay for there materials. the fighters themselves are volunteers.
really easy, nothing complicated to it. and it works.

And there in lies the difference between volunteer and government.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 11:59:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 11:34:52 AM, feverish wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:40:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
do so in a way that completely disregards/actively damages the nonpayer's property.

Initiation of force? Violation of property rights?

The fire was not started by the firefighters, I would assume.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 12:20:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 11:59:38 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 10/5/2010 11:34:52 AM, feverish wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:40:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
do so in a way that completely disregards/actively damages the nonpayer's property.

Initiation of force? Violation of property rights?

The fire was not started by the firefighters, I would assume.

*facepalm

You assume correct lovelife, that's not what I was saying.

Ragnar is very passionate about property rights and doesn't believe that initiating force to violate them is ever justified, he also believes that all tax is theft.

However in his previous post, he advocated firefighters willfully damaging the property of someone who doesn't pay their taxes... I mean user fees.
Lukas
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 12:53:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A bit off topic but I asked this question on another thread and no reply, thought I might try my luck on a more active thread.

Ragnar, which taxes do you actually pay?
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 3:45:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 12:20:47 PM, feverish wrote:
At 10/5/2010 11:59:38 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 10/5/2010 11:34:52 AM, feverish wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:40:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
do so in a way that completely disregards/actively damages the nonpayer's property.

Initiation of force? Violation of property rights?

The fire was not started by the firefighters, I would assume.

*facepalm

You assume correct lovelife, that's not what I was saying.

Ragnar is very passionate about property rights and doesn't believe that initiating force to violate them is ever justified, he also believes that all tax is theft.

However in his previous post, he advocated firefighters willfully damaging the property of someone who doesn't pay their taxes... I mean user fees.

no, you're missing the point. either the firefighters do nothing and let the house burn (which is what happens when the people don't pay the fee and don't request emergency firefighting service) OR the firefighters DO put out the fire, but stipulate that in order for them to do so the owners must in turn allow the firefighters to do collateral damage to their home. the extra destructiveness is not an initiation of force, but rather a term in the contract between the owner of the house and the firefighters. terms that penalize the non-payers for opting for emergency payment only rather than paying up front are necessary to avoid the moral hazard inherent in all types of insurance that cover non-paying individuals. as someone already mentioned, if they just put out fires for everyone regardless, then it would be utterly irrational for anyone to bother paying the fee... and the fire department ceases to run because they have no funds.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2010 8:49:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 11:25:42 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 10/5/2010 11:07:46 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/5/2010 9:34:43 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:40:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Sounds like it all worked out okay then, since it didn't say the neighbor's property burned down (though a better policy is to put it out before it spreads, but to do so in a way that completely disregards/actively damages the nonpayer's property. Assuming one wants to measure firefighting against a fee, it's a small and unusual enough case that a government could just up and provide it to preempt hassles that could get in the way of police fee collection, as a cost of doing business much like the military except smaller).

that's so heartless. and pointless. with the number of fires in given year that the department puts out they should be able to put out any fire without finances loss. in other words they can afford to spare the water on this house.
That doesn't make any sense as an out of context absolute. Who would pay them if they did that? (other than, again, the organization that thinks it's a good way to maintain an investment in police jurisdiction).

from the fire departments spaghetti dinners. town comes, enjoys food for a $5.00 ticket and donates whatever else there hearts are content to do, or even purchases raffle tickets there at the spaghetti supper
That might work in a town full of bleeding hearts. A very small town. But the world does not and should not work that way.

the fighters themselves are volunteers.
Relying on "volunteerism" without compensation is stupid and unsustainable.

Initiation of force?
Retaliation to forcing others to deal with the fires that spring from your property one goddamn way or another.
Since it only affects people who were too negligient to put the fires created by their own property out themselves in the first place, no innocent's property rights are violated.

Ragnar, which taxes do you actually pay?
Sales taxes, and the taxes in the future.

Ask him how his education is funded too!
The majority is funded by private loan. The rest would be too if the government started withdrawing the subsidies that I'll be stuck paying for in the future whether I take them or not (and so I take them, not being a moron).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 5:39:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 3:45:59 PM, belle wrote:
the extra destructiveness is not an initiation of force, but rather a term in the contract between the owner of the house and the firefighters.

I believe contracts have to be voluntary, which doesn't sound like the case here.

At 10/5/2010 8:49:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Retaliation to forcing others to deal with the fires that spring from your property one goddamn way or another.

How are they forcing others to deal with the fire? Just as they were not forced to pay their user fee (tax) because they have the option of burning to death, just as nobody is forced to work because they have the option of starving to death, so others are not forced to put out fires on their property. Am I missing something?

Since it only affects people who were too negligient to put the fires created by their own property out themselves in the first place, no innocent's property rights are violated.

So negligence justifies force? Except when it comes to paying tax?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 8:45:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:49:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Retaliation to forcing others to deal with the fires that spring from your property one goddamn way or another.

How are they forcing others to deal with the fire?
They treated their property in such a way that it produced a fire that will encroach upon the property of another.

Since it only affects people who were too negligient to put the fires created by their own property out themselves in the first place, no innocent's property rights are violated.

So negligence justifies force?
The action of building/buying a house combined with the inaction of not preventing it from being the starter for a fire that will spread to another house? Yes. The inaction WITHOUT the action? No. The action without demonstration of that negligience (i.e., without a fire?) No.

Except when it comes to paying tax?
I don't see where the kindling-house is in tax :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 10:48:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's a good thing we have governments. Governments will never just let someone's house burn down.

Oh wait. http://econlog.econlib.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 10:50:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/5/2010 8:49:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/5/2010 11:25:42 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 10/5/2010 11:07:46 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/5/2010 9:34:43 AM, Marauder wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:40:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Sounds like it all worked out okay then, since it didn't say the neighbor's property burned down (though a better policy is to put it out before it spreads, but to do so in a way that completely disregards/actively damages the nonpayer's property. Assuming one wants to measure firefighting against a fee, it's a small and unusual enough case that a government could just up and provide it to preempt hassles that could get in the way of police fee collection, as a cost of doing business much like the military except smaller).

that's so heartless. and pointless. with the number of fires in given year that the department puts out they should be able to put out any fire without finances loss. in other words they can afford to spare the water on this house.
That doesn't make any sense as an out of context absolute. Who would pay them if they did that? (other than, again, the organization that thinks it's a good way to maintain an investment in police jurisdiction).

from the fire departments spaghetti dinners. town comes, enjoys food for a $5.00 ticket and donates whatever else there hearts are content to do, or even purchases raffle tickets there at the spaghetti supper
That might work in a town full of bleeding hearts. A very small town. But the world does not and should not work that way.
Well, though I can only speak for my town, witch is small, it is working. But even if your not a 'bleeding hart' but are actually a heartless, only logistically concerned person, who is concerned only for himself then its still logical for you to go to the annual spaghetti dinner and purchase a meal. You know the funds only go to what will aid in protecting your home, and you get a meal out of it, not to mention near everyone in town stops by at this shindig so its a good chance to get out of the house and interact with the lots of people you don't see as often in your community. So it makes this funding optional unlike a tax, and it adds the benefit of getting something immediately out of paying it (food) which a tax does not give. and lots of people you know will likely be there.
the fighters themselves are volunteers.
Relying on "volunteerism" without compensation is stupid and unsustainable.

please explain.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 12:07:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/6/2010 8:45:16 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:49:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

How are they forcing others to deal with the fire?
They treated their property in such a way that it produced a fire that will encroach upon the property of another.

Yeah but the person who's property it encroaches on doesn't need to put it out, the same way that in your ideal system (society?) people don't need to work for slave wages or need to pay their taxes ... er... user fees, sorry.

I thought that according to you, if you have the option of dying peacefully, then there is no forceful coercion.


Since it only affects people who were too negligient to put the fires created by their own property out themselves in the first place, no innocent's property rights are violated.

So negligence justifies force?
The action of building/buying a house combined with the inaction of not preventing it from being the starter for a fire that will spread to another house? Yes. The inaction WITHOUT the action? No. The action without demonstration of that negligience (i.e., without a fire?) No.

I see. Well what about the action of building/buying a house in a nation that expects you to pay tax and then the inaction of not paying it?

Except when it comes to paying tax?
I don't see where the kindling-house is in tax :P.

Think of the burning house the same way you think of tax demands as a loaded gun pointed at your head.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2010 3:34:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/6/2010 12:07:02 PM, feverish wrote:
At 10/6/2010 8:45:16 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/5/2010 8:49:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

How are they forcing others to deal with the fire?
They treated their property in such a way that it produced a fire that will encroach upon the property of another.

Yeah but the person who's property it encroaches on doesn't need to put it out
They still have to deal with it, i.e., they are still stuck with the consequences. The point is that by spreading fire through negligence they initiated force.


I thought that according to you, if you have the option of dying peacefully, then there is no forceful coercion.
No, you always have the option of dying peacefully. :P



Since it only affects people who were too negligient to put the fires created by their own property out themselves in the first place, no innocent's property rights are violated.

So negligence justifies force?
The action of building/buying a house combined with the inaction of not preventing it from being the starter for a fire that will spread to another house? Yes. The inaction WITHOUT the action? No. The action without demonstration of that negligience (i.e., without a fire?) No.

I see. Well what about the action of building/buying a house in a nation that expects you to pay tax and then the inaction of not paying it?
A nation isn't a force of nature. And their expectation is unjustified.


Except when it comes to paying tax?
I don't see where the kindling-house is in tax :P.

Think of the burning house the same way you think of tax demands as a loaded gun pointed at your head.
Fire is part of nature. It is to be expected. Those who fall to a natural fire are blameworthy in terms of their own life, those who negligently direct it onto another's property have initiated force.

A loaded gun is not part of nature, the person who has it directed at them can certainly not be held accountable for the fact of the gun if the gun is initial-- BY THE PERSON POINTING THE GUN at least. If you through incompetence fuel the actions of some tyrant, some third party affected by the tyrant may be justified in taking action against you in self-defense, although, since it isn't volitional or necessarily negligient, the blame does not stick to you and justify continued action once the threat is gone (you are metaphysically guilty for the moment but morally innocent). But the tyrant is NOT justified thereby, and it is the tyrant in question who leverages the taxes.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2010 6:13:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Let me get this right. The government refuses to put out the fire of someone that hasn't paid the proper tax. Therefore, libertarianism is stupid.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2010 6:48:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/7/2010 6:13:08 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Let me get this right. The government refuses to put out the fire of someone that hasn't paid the proper tax.
No tax was involved. A fee that you could pay or not pay with no one initiating force against you was.

Therefore, libertarianism is stupid.
I agree that that is the wrong conclusion to reach, but check your premise anyway.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.