Objectivism: Selfishness dressed up in it's sunday best

[Annonymous]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

Just because something can doesn't mean it would be a good idea. What about if you didn't pay the fire department? What then? What if you didn't have to pay to use a road but one of your empoyees did? You're still going to end up having to spend for it by a higher sallary for your employee so they can come to work, so what makes it inherently better then a publicly owned road?

this post makes no sense.

first of all the road and fire department are paid by taxes such as gasoline and property tax goes to fire department.

if you want to live on that acre, pay taxes on the acre and you receive a fire department and police station.

They are trying to get to the point, where you don't need a government to provide every little thing. Like with health insurance, just because it's a modern invention, doesn't mean everyone has the right to BENEFITING from it. If you want to pay to benefit, by all means enjoy what you pay for. If you want a public option where people have to contribute to you getting that health insurance, is where people have the problem.


i could be really off base, but i think that's where everyone is some what trying to get at.

[TheDudeAbides]

Originally Posted by Annonymous

this post makes no sense.

first of all the road and fire department are paid by taxes such as gasoline and property tax goes to fire department.

if you want to live on that acre, pay taxes on the acre and you receive a fire department and police station.

They are trying to get to the point, where you don't need a government to provide every little thing. Like with health insurance, just because it's a modern invention, doesn't mean everyone has the right to BENEFITING from it. If you want to pay to benefit, by all means enjoy what you pay for. If you want a public option where people have to contribute to you getting that health insurance, is where people have the problem.


i could be really off base, but i think that's where everyone is some what trying to get at.

Uh no guy. Objectivism is directly opposed to this sort of funding. It's considered immoral and wrong and should idealy be left to the free market to determine it.

[Annonymous]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

Uh no guy. Objectivism is directly opposed to this sort of funding. It's considered immoral and wrong and should idealy be left to the free market to determine it.

it's just a philosophy, does this mean you believe Obama's advisors are using means through their publications and experience in the field of population control, through contaminating water, food, and air.

[TheDudeAbides]

Originally Posted by Annonymous

it's just a philosophy, does this mean you believe Obama's advisors are using means through their publications and experience in the field of population control, through contaminating water, food, and air.

if obama stated that as part of his platform i might be more inclined to believe it.

[Annonymous]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

if obama stated that as part of his platform i might be more inclined to believe it.

well how can one not agree with this philosophy, but you're making it mandatory for them to carry out each plan, following it to the very core of the beliefs. Where as Obama has these advisors at his dispense, he hires them, pays them, talks to them, he just doesn't tell you he is planning to kill your unborns slowly.

[aaronman]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

Uh no guy. Objectivism is directly opposed to this sort of funding. It's considered immoral and wrong and should idealy be left to the free market to determine it.

Uh no guy. Objectivism supports voluntary taxation, just like libertarianism.

Ayn Rand says, “in a fully free society, taxation – or, to be exact, payment for governmental services – would be voluntary”.

So long as it is a voluntary tax, such as user fees or excises, then it is moral. Any taxes on personal income is coercive, and not even necessary.

[kingmonkey]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

Just because something can doesn't mean it would be a good idea. What about if you didn't pay the fire department? What then? What if you didn't have to pay to use a road but one of your empoyees did? You're still going to end up having to spend for it by a higher sallary for your employee so they can come to work, so what makes it inherently better then a publicly owned road?

I'll address only private fire departments in this post. I can address roads later if you wish.

Fire protection is a service like anything else. It is a service because some see it as essential to their safety. Because of that those things can, and are, sold on the free market. There are already a number of successful private fire departments in this country. AIG maintains (or did until it went belly up) a private fire department which protected it's clients from California wild fires. Aircraft giant Boeing also has a private fire protection service, which is in fact one of the largest private fire protection companies in the world.

The Herritage Foundation has recently blogged about private fire departments citing a study conducted by the Reason Foundation entitled "Fire Protection Privatization: A Cost-Effective Approach to Public Safety." This study cited many different real life examples of how private fire departments are saving cities money every year. One example I really like, and the one the Herritage Foundation article references, is that of Savannah, Georgia. The study notes that the Southside Fire Department, a private fire department in Savannah, saves the city some $2.5-$3 million in capital expenses and $1 million in annual operating expenses every single year. Those are significant savings. The study also cites how much money consumers are saving each year by having subscribing to their services. The study notes: "Residents subscribe because doing so saves them money. The owner of a typical $100,000 house in Chatham County, for instance, will save about $300 to $350 on insurance per year. Since the cost of a subscription (on a $100,000 home) is only $113, that means the homeowner will save a net total of about $200 to $250, or 60 to 65 percent on his insurance" (pp. 13-14).

Many municipalities are starting to see the benefits of private fire protection and more and more places are starting to open up to the idea. The major flaw I see in many of these places is that cities will contract out the service to a private company. While the private company must deliver at a cheaper rate I believe that simply allowing a completely free market in the fire protection would deliver an even better service and a lower rate. Allowing multiple companies to compete would further reduce the price of this service as they fought for control of the market. It is also important to eliminate the taxes paid to fund public fire departments, allowing taxpayers more money to be spent how they please.

Without a government monopoly on fire protection I can envision a world wherein everyone is covered by some form of private fire protection. It could be mandated that you subscribe to a fire protection company by your mortgage company, just the same as they require that you carry home owners insurance. But at least you can shop around and choose the company you like the most to provide that service. I'm sure there will be some that do not subscribe to such a service, as would be their right, yet you and I might not be endangered by them. Since the role of a private fire department is to ensure the safety of your home if your neighbors home catches on fire they could be called out to ensure that your home does not burn down. The fire department isn't really attempting to "save" a house from burning down. They are in reality attempting to contain the fire to a single dwelling so it doesn't spread. That being the case your company might simply sit back and monitor your neighbors fire. I would suspect that if it looked as though the fire might spread they would act to either contain your the fire in your neighbors house or put it out completely.

Government isn't needed to have adequate fire protection. The market can provide it better and cheaper.

[Penelope420]

Originally Posted by kingmonkey

Without a government monopoly on fire protection I can envision a world wherein everyone is covered by some form of private fire protection. It could be mandated that you subscribe to a fire protection company by your mortgage company, just the same as they require that you carry home owners insurance. But at least you can shop around and choose the company you like the most to provide that service. I'm sure there will be some that do not subscribe to such a service, as would be their right, yet you and I might not be endangered by them. Since the role of a private fire department is to ensure the safety of your home if your neighbors home catches on fire they could be called out to ensure that your home does not burn down. The fire department isn't really attempting to "save" a house from burning down. They are in reality attempting to contain the fire to a single dwelling so it doesn't spread. That being the case your company might simply sit back and monitor your neighbors fire. I would suspect that if it looked as though the fire might spread they would act to either contain your the fire in your neighbors house or put it out completely.

Government isn't needed to have adequate fire protection. The market can provide it better and cheaper.

You said it yourself... even private fire departments are paid for using public funds.

What happens when someone can not afford to get fire insurance or pay to clean up their house after it has burned?

Hypothetically... you are my neighbor. You 'choose' not to have any fire insurance. You have no savings to speak of, so when your house burns down, you can't pay for a private fire department to come and it.

Because of your choice, I have to -PAY someone- to come and make sure -YOUR fire- doesn't burn -MY HOUSE- to the ground? We've already established that you can not afford to do it (hypothetically).

Am I understanding that correctly??

After I've paid for someone to come and monitor your burning house, who's going to clean up your mess? You owe more money then it's worth (remember, there used to be a house there), so you can't sell.

So now your neighbors are going to have to pay to clean it up themselves, or risk their property values going down.

What gives you the right to put your neighbors property in danger? Not only in value, but in physical danger? Why should they have to clean up your mess? Not everyone is going to have the forethought to save up for such events, and not everyone is going to be able to afford it. Thus, we all chip in so we don't have to live in neighborhoods with burnt, charred houses collapsing around us.

[kingmonkey]

Originally Posted by Penelope420

You said it yourself... even private fire departments are paid for using public funds.

In some places, yes. The point was that private fire departments are more efficient. The case of Southside Fire Department in Georgia is one in which residents pay for it, not the city. It is funded through a subscription program. The fact that some cities opt to pay a private company for this services doesn't negate the fact that a private company is more efficient. And there are good examples of how these companies operate off of a subscription basis.

Originally Posted by Penelope420

What happens when someone can not afford to get fire insurance or pay to clean up their house after it has burned?

Are you talking about now or under privatization? If you had bothered to read anything I wrote you will see that the cost associated with private fire protection is more than off set by savings on your homeowners insurance. Since most people carry home owners insurance your question is invalid. If we had total privatization you'd see the price for this service come down even more as companies compete for customers.

As for cleaning up the house it would still be your responsibility as it is now. The city doesn't pay to clean up your house after it burns down. That is your responsibility. For most people insurance pays for this. Others rent dumpsters and do it themselves.

Originally Posted by Penelope420

Hypothetically... you are my neighbor. You 'choose' not to have any fire insurance. You have no savings to speak of, so when your house burns down, you can't pay for a private fire department to come and it.

Because of your choice, I have to -PAY someone- to come and make sure -YOUR fire- doesn't burn -MY HOUSE- to the ground? We've already established that you can not afford to do it (hypothetically).

Am I understanding that correctly??

No, you've paid a fire protection company to protect your house from fire. You aren't paying them to put out your neighbors house. You are paying them to ensure that your house does not burn down. The company can make a call one way or the other. They might just sit back and let the house burn if it is not threatening your house or they would either contain the fire and let it die out or actively seek to put it out. If putting your neighbors fire out is in the best interest of protecting your home then that is what they would do. The service you pay for is the protection of your home and that is what you get.

Originally Posted by Penelope420

After I've paid for someone to come and monitor your burning house, who's going to clean up your mess? You owe more money then it's worth (remember, there used to be a house there), so you can't sell.

If you "owe more money then it's worth" then likely you'd have insurance. If that is the case then, depending on your policy, either you would pay to clean up the mess or your insurance company would. It would be no different than it is today. Cities do not clean up the mess. That responsibility falls on your shoulders. Even under a private system it would still be your responsibility to clean it up.

Originally Posted by Penelope420

So now your neighbors are going to have to pay to clean it up themselves, or risk their property values going down.

What gives you the right to put your neighbors property in danger? Not only in value, but in physical danger? Why should they have to clean up your mess? Not everyone is going to have the forethought to save up for such events, and not everyone is going to be able to afford it. Thus, we all chip in so we don't have to live in neighborhoods with burnt, charred houses collapsing around us.

Perhaps you should talk to your local insurance agent to fully understand the simple concept of home owners insurance. It's not a hard thing to grasp. How about next time instead of simply arguing your socialist agenda you take the time to read what is written and check the references. Also, try to have some understanding of what you are arguing because it is clear you do not. If you did have even the slightest understanding of this issue you would already know that A) the city isn't going to clean up the mess after your house burns down and B) a fire department isn't trying to save a house from a fire. By the time they get there it is usually too late. They are trying to contain the fire so that it doesn't spread to other structures. It would be no different with a private system.

[Penelope420]

I agree that private enterprise is always more efficient than the public equivalent.

Why do you think that is? It's because private enterprise can pick and choose who it does business with.

When it comes to life-threatening, necessary services, this does not benefit the public. It benefits the private enterprise.

They aren't 'competing' for business. Our houses are going to burn down regardless. We aren't going to start burning them down at a faster rate in order to get in on the 2-for-1 discount. Supply and demand. The demand isn't going to go up, and it will be a HIGHLY competitive industry with few survivors. In a small town, where there might only be one fire a month, just how much competition can there be?

So we're left with a monopoly anyway. Except now they can charge us whateverthefuck they want to. OR, more realistically, they can charge our insurance companies whatever they want, which will make the cost of our policies go up (hmmm... does this sound like another private industry)

No, you've paid a fire protection company to protect your house from fire. You aren't paying them to put out your neighbors house. You are paying them to ensure that your house does not burn down. The company can make a call one way or the other. They might just sit back and let the house burn if it is not threatening your house or they would either contain the fire and let it die out or actively seek to put it out. If putting your neighbors fire out is in the best interest of protecting your home then that is what they would do. The service you pay for is the protection of your home and that is what you get.

Uh.. no. It doesn't work this way.

If a fire on YOUR property damages MY property, you are 100% responsible. I don't need to pay someone to protect me from YOUR responsibility.

Even if they "sit back and watch", you think someone is going to do that for free?

I will pay for insurance to cover MY mistakes, but you pay for YOUR mistakes. You're fucking crazy if you think I'm going to pay for both.

I could maybe get behind the idea of a private fire department if people were forced to have fire protection, so that people CAN'T just let their houses burn down and risk other people's houses and lives in the process. No one else should have to pay to protect themselves from your fire.

But forced insurance? That's not very free market either.

[hydrosRheaven]

Originally Posted by aaronman

Uh no guy. Objectivism supports voluntary taxation, just like libertarianism.

Ayn Rand says, “in a fully free society, taxation – or, to be exact, payment for governmental services – would be voluntary”.

So long as it is a voluntary tax, such as user fees or excises, then it is moral. Any taxes on personal income is coercive, and not even necessary.

Voluntary taxation is an oxymoron that exists only in your head. There is no such thing as a voluntary tax, if it were voluntary then it would be called something else.

[TLF1088]

Originally Posted by hydrosRheaven

Voluntary taxation is an oxymoron that exists only in your head. There is no such thing as a voluntary tax, if it were voluntary then it would be called something else.

Are you serious?

What do you think taxes on certain goods are?

Gasoline tax is voluntary.

You don't want to pay it, then don't buy gas.

Cigarette tax, you don't want to pay, don't smoke.

[hydrosRheaven]

Originally Posted by TLF1088

Gasoline tax is voluntary.

You don't want to pay it, then don't buy gas.

Grocery taxes are voluntary. You don't want to pay it then don't buy food

Consumption taxes not voluntary. It is no easier to avoid all consumption, then it is to avoid all income. For a tax to be voluntary, you must be able to both opt in and out. If you can not choose to purchase the product and opt out of the tax, there is nothing voluntary about it.

I think consumption is a great way to go about taxing, never the less taxes are not voluntary.

[TheDudeAbides]

Originally Posted by aaronman

Uh no guy. Objectivism supports voluntary taxation, just like libertarianism.

Ayn Rand says, “in a fully free society, taxation – or, to be exact, payment for governmental services – would be voluntary”.

So long as it is a voluntary tax, such as user fees or excises, then it is moral. Any taxes on personal income is coercive, and not even necessary.

Hang on, I hate to bring this thread back tot his tangent, but if someone doesn't have to pay for it, doesn't that make it a donation, and not a tax?

How would this sort of thing work for a fire department in a town that hasnt had a fire in three weeks?

[Penelope420]

Originally Posted by TLF1088

Are you serious?

What do you think taxes on certain goods are?

Gasoline tax is voluntary.

You don't want to pay it, then don't buy gas.

Cigarette tax, you don't want to pay, don't smoke.

The gasoline tax factors in to the price of everything. Goods don't just magically appear in stores.

If I want to buy food, I'm paying for the gas it took to get there.

There is no such thing as "voluntary" taxes. That's a political term if I ever heard one. Vote for me! I'll only force you to pay voluntary taxes!