This is one of the already "socialized" forces in our country( the fire department). FULL STORY "A smoldering rage may be all that remains after Gene Cranick's home burned to the ground last week in Obion County, Tennessee. Firefighters are usually the bold "veni, vidi, vici" sort, but those from neighboring South Fulton could only say "veni, vidi." They came. They watched. That's it. Cranick lives outside of the city limits and he admits that he forgot to pay a $75 annual service fee that would have provided him with fire protection. Firefighters wouldn't lift a finger, much less the hoses that might have saved the house......................."
This is exactly why i feel like anarchism won't work. they should have put his fire out and then charged him a fee if they are that worried about money.
Correct, but what happens in an anarchy when you have to pay a subscription fee like this man failed to pay, and they roll up on your house then realize you did not pay. You think guys that are dick enough to let this guys house burn are not going to be dick enough to let someone house burn when the subscription fees are their ONLY means of income??? Please don't pretend like they did not put the fire out over 75 dollars worth of red tape. They did not put it out because they were being petty.
You're a little late to that party there, SouthernSmoke. http://forum.grasscity.com/politics...e-if-libertarians-ran-show-7.html#post8487991
If a private fire company rolled up on a house that was on fire, but the owner didn't pay the retarded $75, they would still put out the fire, but they would most likely markup the price from the nominal $75 fee, to something many hundreds of thousands of times bigger. A private business would not let an opportunity to go to waste, because they care about profit. The reason why these firefighters didn't put out the fire was because they are employed by a public institution that doesn't care about profit, so if you break their rules, there's no financial recourse. You can't offer them, say, $5,000 to put it out, because what does that mean to a publicly-run fire department? Nothing. To a private business, that means $5,000 worth of business.
Thanks but i have been keeping up with that thread. Your telling me a fire department that was willing to let a guys house burn down over a little bit of paper work, and 75 dollars, would show up and save the house if he agreed to pay after? I think they would be more likely to not even show up and tell the man on the phone " sorry, you never paid the annual fee." If money does not matter because they are not for profit, and they are publicly run, then why did they refuse to put the fire out over an annual fee?
Because if they start putting out fires for free whether or not you have the subscription, then no one will buy the subscription. They'll just say, 'oh, you put out fires in the past despite people not having a subscription', the department could likely be sued for discrimination or something stupid, etc. The reason why they charge a subscription in the first place, is because these houses are in a rural area that doesn't have it's own fire station, so this fire department in question offered it's service (albeit not for free) to residents in this rural location in a different town/municipality.
Call me a clown ( circus music, that makes a valid point!) But i thought you anarchists made the argument that people would help each other out of the goodness of their heart? The argument you are making basically justifies gouging. And while i typically am all for self responsibility, i think anarchism would pretty much fail when it comes to this type of service.
What i find even more funny is the keith olbermans liberal spin he throws on it. He states "its a tea party preview" When in fact the fire department is an example of socialism already in play in America. It would actually be more accurate to say " let this be an example to you if we implemented socialism to more aspects of our country" or "preview of obamacare"
Your response makes some decent sense, ( as do most of your responses) But for some reason i don't feel like my question was answered. Why did a publicly run fire department, where money does not matter, refuse to put out a fire over money? If nothing is going to change for that fire department regaurdless of whether they put the fire out or not, why would they not just put out the fire? The answer is because they were petty and wanted to send a message to people who don't pay the subscription. " don't pay, and your house will burn."
I love how they do that. Just like the people that blame capitalism all day for the problems of america, as if a free market existed.