Libertarians: Evil or Really, Really Evil?

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Just so George gets his props, the "Libertarian wet dream" link in the OP came from his blog.

http://georgedonnelly.com

That's george with a g, donnelly, dot com.

Putting out a fire without being paid may generate good marketing buzz. It might build confidence in the profession of firefighters. Or it might save an insured property.

It may also encourage other people to not pay for the service, since they can get it for free.

What about Brock's Just-in-Time Fire Service and Mobile Car Wash?  We specialize in putting out the fires others won't.  Just insert your insurance card in the reader, we'll handle the heat.

Double green stamps on Wednesdays.

That's how Licenius Crassius made his fortune. He bought a full-time brigade of slaves to go out to burning buildings in Rome and negotiate with the owners as the house burned.

Moral of the story: buy fire protection.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

By: Chris Menees, Staff Reporter
Posted: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:05 pm

By CHRIS MENEES
Staff Reporter
South Fulton’s fire chief was assaulted Wednesday in the aftermath of a fire where firefighters were unable to respond because the property owner had not paid a rural fire subscription fee. South Fulton Fire Chief David Wilds was treated at an area hospital after being assaulted about 5:45 p.m. at the city’s fire station, located in the South Fulton Municipal Building.

Timothy A. Cranick, 44, a resident of Buddy Jones Road near South Fulton, was arrested and charged with felony aggravated assault, according to South Fulton Police Chief Andy Crocker. Crocker said the assault stemmed from a fire that occurred earlier in the day and he identified Cranick as a family member of the person whose property burned. He said Cranick allegedly came to the fire station looking for Wilds, according to witnesses. When the fire chief identified himself and asked if he could help him, Cranick allegedly struck Wilds.
“He just cold-cocked him,” Crocker said, based on witness statements.

Crocker said Wilds was knocked down, rendering him virtually defenseless. He said Cranick was pulled off the fire chief by other firefighters who restrained him until additional help arrived. Cranick was taken to the Obion County Law Enforcement Complex and was later taken to the hospital in Union City for treatment of a hand injury sustained in the incident. South Fulton city manager Jeff Vowell told The Messenger that Wilds is “doing OK” today and is actually back at the fire station — despite what he characterized as a very emotional and trying day on the job Wednesday, made even more stressful by a local television news crew’s presence and then the assault incident.

Wilds has referred any comment about Wednes-day’s situation to Vowell.

Fire call

The fire that sparked the controversy apparently broke out about 2:30 p.m. Wednesday at Gene Cranick’s property on Buddy Jones Road, located outside the city limits of South Fulton. Vowell explained that the property owner was not a paying member of the rural fire subscription service offered to county residents by the City of South Fulton. He said as per city policy, established by city ordinance, the call was declined and the city’s fire department could not respond.

“I have no problem with the way any of my people handled the situation. They did what they were supposed to do,” he said. “It’s a regrettable situation any time something like this happens.”

He said the South Fulton Fire Department did respond to a request to protect the property of the adjacent property owner, who is a member of the rural fire subscription service. Vowell said county residents do not have guaranteed fire service since there is no countywide fire department to cover rural areas, but many municipalities offer rural fire coverage to residents in specified coverage areas for a nominal annual fee. South Fulton’s fee is $75. However, Vowell said residents in those rural areas cannot be forced to pay the fee and it’s their decision whether to accept the coverage.

“We are a city fire department. We are responsible for the City of South Fulton and we offer a subscription (to rural residents). If they choose not to, we can’t make them,” he said.

He said Obion County government has been thoroughly studying rural fire protection and “has looked at it 100 different ways,” with details of a proposal still being worked out. Ironically, the matter began to be discussed seriously just over two years ago following a similar situation where South Fulton firefighters could not respond to a rural call.

Rural service offered

South Fulton Mayor David Crocker said city officials don’t want to see anyone’s house burn, but he emphasized that South Fulton has a city fire department which is supported by city taxes in order to serve its residents — with a rural fire subscription service made available outside the city limits to county residents in the city’s designated rural coverage area.

“We’re very sorry their house burned,” he said.

Mayor Crocker said if the fire department operated on a per-call basis outside the city, there would be no incentive for anyone to pay the rural fee. As an analogy, he said if an auto owner allowed their vehicle insurance to lapse, they would not expect an insurance company to pay for an unprotected vehicle after it was wrecked. Vowell said people always think they will never be in a situation where they will need rural fire protection, but he said City of South Fulton personnel actually go above and beyond in trying to offer the service. He said the city mails out notices to customers in the specified rural coverage area, with coverage running from July 1 of one year to July 1 the next year. At the end of the enrollment month of July, the city goes a step further and makes phone calls to rural residents who have not responded to the mail-out.

“These folks were called and notified,” Vowell said. “I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to get it and be aware it’s available. It’s been there for 20 years, but it’s very important to follow up.” Mayor Crocker added, “It’s my understanding with talking with the firefighters that these folks had received their bill and they had also contacted them by phone.”

“My worst nightmare is that, for whatever reason, you don’t respond to someone who isn’t (a rural fire service member). That’s why we’re so diligent and adamant,” Vowell said. “No one wants what happened yesterday. I don’t want it, the fire department doesn’t want it, the (city commission) doesn’t want it.”

Can't say as I blame the man for cold-cocking that douchebag Fire Chief. I wanna vomit every time I try and explain to people that this was simply a set of unionized thugs defending their public sector jobs and that a Free Market fire brigade would have taken the man's money when they arrived.

[Cognitive Dissident]

One thing I can say is at $75, I'm pretty sure they're cheaper than my county's fire bill on my property tax.  I think I'd expect commensurately poor service, though.

Further, the analogy the bureaucrat draws to car insurance is dishonest.  They wouldn't provide service, period, even after offered money.  If you don't have car insurance and your car is damaged, I'm pretty sure the auto body service will accept cash payment--pretty sure they don't care if you're insured as long as you pay.  I'm sure it works just as well with the free-market fire services.

Of course, what gripes me most about this story is that leftists somehow got the idea that this is a "free-market" fire service that stood around and watched the property burn.  I was, of course, nothing close to it.

[Pizzly]

I don't understand how anyone can think this is was a free market action. Really, it's just nuts. Usually I can at least understand where their reasoning goes wrong, but here it seems like they are doing a large scale practical joke.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Some people are just ignorant (rather than stupid.)  

After all, they think what we have now, outside the government sector, is basically a free market.  We know it's not nearly free, because if it was it would be...free, not state-regulated.  

What really seems to confuse the uninitiated is "privatization."  Somehow, they think when a company does something instead of the government, that's free market.  They neglect the effects of legislation--sometimes to the point of creating a monopoly with few variations in service options, let alone providers.  

This case is a little different from that.  Somehow, they think that since the county folks have the option of choosing the municipal offering at a set price, or nothing, that's free market (or literally, in the case of the one blog, "libertarian".)  We know that the market isn't even involved in this case, but they see a choice and they think that implies freedom (thanks, Milton Freedman!)  Everyone, including convicts, gets choices.  It doesn't make them free, and it has little, if anything, to do with a free market.  As the convict knows, his ability to make choices within his cell cannot be construed as liberty.

[Rillion]

I'm having a conversation with someone who acknowledges that this is not a matter of a private service acting, but he thinks it is a matter of the government acting like a private service-- and see, this is what happens!  Fighting house fires shouldn't be optional for the government like providing services is optional for private companies! 

I tried to point out that there's no reason for a private company to just refuse to provide a service it's perfectly capable of providing if the customer is willing to pay enough for it.  Nope, not good enough.  I tried pointing out that there are volunteer fire services all over the place, and they don't have a habit of refusing to put out anyone's fires either.  Nope, not good enough.  The government should never allow people to destroy their lives while it stands by if it has the ability to prevent that from happening by forcibly collecting a tax beforehand, apparently. 

I pointed out that maybe this guy would rather his house burn down than spend the rest of his life in prison for tax evasion.   No comprehension there.

Not sure what else to say. 

[Cognitive Dissident]

I think I used to underestimate the average person's ignorance and more importantly, lack of imagination with regard to free market possibilities.  It's become clear lately that unless you live somewhere that is already less state-oriented, people just don't understand, and seem to have little interest in trying to understand. 

Most of the US (and certainly Western Europe) seems permanently lost to any semblance of liberty for this reason.  I guess it's why I'm convinced the FSP is one of the very few chances to reverse the trend, anywhere.  Seasteading is another possibility.  I think we'd have a shot here in Colorado, but not with people going to NH.

Overall, things look pretty dim in the G20 (for lack of a better term) though.  The best progress seems to be where poverty and/or previous failed state actions has limited the establishment of a powerful state.  I guess I should spend more time on the ISIL web site, though, because I'm probably not that informed on the international scene.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Here's the next "free market" disaster.

Notice how, by government "standards" the stuff was considered "safe."  Notice how the government inspected the sludge a week ago.  I'd be willing to bet government was actively involved through the entire process.  Not only that, I'd be willing to bet the factory was built under communism (I.E. it's probably a government creation.)

Hungary: Toxic red sludge has reached the Danube

[Pizzly]

The biggest problem is when you have to admit that no, there is no moral obligation to help others. I myself don't believe in positive moral standards, I don't think an ethical system can determine which actions must be done, only what must not be done.

[Rillion]

The biggest problem is when you have to admit that no, there is no moral obligation to help others. I myself don't believe in positive moral standards, I don't think an ethical system can determine which actions must be done, only what must not be done.

So you don't think there's any sense in which a person who helps others can be considered more morally good than someone who doesn't?

[YixilTesiphon]

It seems that recently libertarians have become a boogeyman to blame anything imaginable bad on. War? Probably the evil libertarians. Pollution? Definitely. Hurricanes? Libertarians.

[Cognitive Dissident]

It seems that recently libertarians have become a boogeyman to blame anything imaginable bad on. War? Probably the evil libertarians. Pollution? Definitely. Hurricanes? Libertarians.

It almost makes sense.  To the infantile mind, libertarian means "out of control."

[YixilTesiphon]

It seems that recently libertarians have become a boogeyman to blame anything imaginable bad on. War? Probably the evil libertarians. Pollution? Definitely. Hurricanes? Libertarians.

It almost makes sense.  To the infantile mind, libertarian means "out of control."

Fair enough. Something went wrong, so obviously it wasn't controlled enough.

[TimeLady Victorious]

Here's the next "free market" disaster.

Notice how, by government "standards" the stuff was considered "safe."  Notice how the government inspected the sludge a week ago.  I'd be willing to bet government was actively involved through the entire process.  Not only that, I'd be willing to bet the factory was built under communism (I.E. it's probably a government creation.)

Hungary: Toxic red sludge has reached the Danube

In this anarcho-capitalist paradise you speak of, what would be the motivation for the company to even care about safety regulations?

I'm pretty sure Union Carbide didn't give a shit about keeping stuff safe, and they probably could have if they'd wanted to - which led to the Bhopal incident.

[MacFall]

How about the fact that in a free market, the second someone else DOES care about safety standards, the company that doesn't is faced with an existential threat? Free market means free entry into the market, and there are always people looking for ways to outdo their competitors. The vast majority of startup costs that exist today are imposed by the state, and hence would not be present in a free market (including safety standards which do much more to fasten established businesses than actually keep consumers safe); nor would there be the directly-imposed political barriers to entry which now exist.

Of course, the less-safe company could stay in business providing their inferior products at a cheaper rate as long as there are customers to whom the price is more important than the quality. And as long as they freely make that choice, there is no problem; the only obligation the company would have would be against lying about the safety of their products.