Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Oddball]

Fictitious but plausible. Why don't you tell me how you see user fees for emergency services working? I have been watching and learning for 70 fucking years, and I know stupidity and bullshit when I see it.

I live in a rural place where the fire and EMS is 100% voluntary...The members of the community are all very generous to support them at their every fundraiser....This model works every day of every year for hundreds upon hundreds of towns all across the nation....Actual reality shows that it's your "plausible" fictitious scenario that is stupidity and bullshit.

You're moving the goal; posts now. THAT is a logical fallacy. This started with a mention of "fee for service" vs. taxes. Volunteer departments are an entirely different matter.

I'm moving no goalposts....You've set up a scenario where an absolutely proposterous mythical scenario is legitimate enough to validate your statist viewpoint on how to respond to emergency situations...I merely showed, through actual provable evidence, that you're totally full of shit.

Another gaping hole in you "logic" is the notion that homeowners can afford property taxes to support your model, but somehow are totally impoverished, to the point of complete unaffordability, in a free voluntary market model...IOW, you haven't a clue and are just grasping at statist straws and appealing to emotion.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Fictitious but plausible. Why don't you tell me how you see user fees for emergency services working? I have been watching and learning for 70 fucking years, and I know stupidity and bullshit when I see it.

I live in a rural place where the fire and EMS is 100% voluntary...The members of the community are all very generous to support them at their every fundraiser....This model works every day of every year for hundreds upon hundreds of towns all across the nation....Actual reality shows that it's your "plausible" fictitious scenario that is stupidity and bullshit.

You're moving the goal; posts now. THAT is a logical fallacy. This started with a mention of "fee for service" vs. taxes. Volunteer departments are an entirely different matter.

I'm moving no goalposts....You've set up a scenario where an absolutely proposterous mythical scenario is legitimate enough to validate your statist viewpoint on how to respond to emergency situations...I merely showed, through actual provable evidence, that you're totally full of shit.

Another gaping hole in you "logic" is the notion that homeowners can afford property taxes to support your model, but somehow are totally impoverished, to the point of complete unaffordability, in a free voluntary market model...IOW, you haven't a clue and are just appealing to emotion.

Really?

Another Example of Fee-for-Service Fire Department Letting a Home Burn (and its Implications)

Apropos, thematically anyway, to my post from yesterday on the question of individual choice, public policy, and suffering as seen through the eyes of Rick Santorum we have a vivid example of the intersection of private choices and the question of social responsibility. Via the Sideshow: Tennessee family home burns while firefighters watch

A Tennessee couple helplessly watched their home burn to the ground, along with all of their possessions, because they did not pay a $75 annual fee to the local fire department.

Who, exactly is full of shit?

 

[bripat9643]

You think that those tens of millions of welfare queens living in the big city sucking off the teat of government don't have the mentality and responsibility of children? How about the gang members? The thieves that would take what you have if they could get away with it? Hardly responsible adults, are they?

No, humans are too screwed up to be responsible. History is full of those examples. It ain't gonna change now.

Yet you support the very government that promotes such behavior...And if you think that you can tame the beast to give you only what you want, without the indolent and antisocial getting what they want, you need a reality check.

That is why I am a Libertarian for the most part. I want the government to get out of the business of subsidizing sorriness.

No welfare, bailouts, subsidizes or entitlements.

We can easily do that without jeopardizing the few minimal necessary government functions like defense, courts, police etc.

However, you missed the point that I made. The point that I made was that humans are not moral or decent enough so that anarchy would work. Many humans are assholes and without the reasonable constraints would brutalize others and would steal from others.

Tony Soprano and MS-14 are not killers and thieves because the government made them do it. They are killers and thieves because they are assholes.

Post of the thread! You nailed it!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What you both continue to ignore is the fact that the term "limited government" is an oxymoron. It's purely a temporary state of affairs. Once established, government continues to grow and sap the social production until the people all become slaves. The Constitution was a noble attempt to keep government under control, but it failed.

 

[Oddball]

Don't look now, but what you are describing is social contract. And even though there is no formal government, I'm pretty sure it is like all other such rural areas in which there is mutual agreement on how the funds will be used and who has authority to use them; i.e. at least a rudimentary form of government. And there is also most likely legal recourse if somebody should decide to abscond with those funds which also requires some some of government, though in such rural areas the government is usually a government by the people which is what the Constitution intended for us all.

Your "social contract" relies upon compulsion, at gunpoint if necessary...My actual living scenario relies upon people engaging in voluntary action to help one another, and otherwise minding their own business.

 

[Oddball]

Fictitious but plausible. Why don't you tell me how you see user fees for emergency services working? I have been watching and learning for 70 fucking years, and I know stupidity and bullshit when I see it.

I live in a rural place where the fire and EMS is 100% voluntary...The members of the community are all very generous to support them at their every fundraiser....This model works every day of every year for hundreds upon hundreds of towns all across the nation....Actual reality shows that it's your "plausible" fictitious scenario that is stupidity and bullshit.

You're moving the goal; posts now. THAT is a logical fallacy. This started with a mention of "fee for service" vs. taxes. Volunteer departments are an entirely different matter.

I'm moving no goalposts....You've set up a scenario where an absolutely proposterous mythical scenario is legitimate enough to validate your statist viewpoint on how to respond to emergency situations...I merely showed, through actual provable evidence, that you're totally full of shit.

Another gaping hole in you "logic" is the notion that homeowners can afford property taxes to support your model, but somehow are totally impoverished, to the point of complete unaffordability, in a free voluntary market model...IOW, you haven't a clue and are just appealing to emotion.

Really?

Another Example of Fee-for-Service Fire Department Letting a Home Burn (and its Implications)

Apropos, thematically anyway, to my post from yesterday on the question of individual choice, public policy, and suffering as seen through the eyes of Rick Santorum we have a vivid example of the intersection of private choices and the question of social responsibility. Via the Sideshow: Tennessee family home burns while firefighters watch

A Tennessee couple helplessly watched their home burn to the ground, along with all of their possessions, because they did not pay a $75 annual fee to the local fire department.

Who, exactly is full of shit?

Yeah, and?...Life is full of consequences for actions and inactions...Also, there's absolutely no evidence to show that the house wouldn't have burned to the ground even if they had paid their bill.

 

[bripat9643]

Fictitious but plausible. Why don't you tell me how you see user fees for emergency services working? I have been watching and learning for 70 fucking years, and I know stupidity and bullshit when I see it.

I live in a rural place where the fire and EMS is 100% voluntary...The members of the community are all very generous to support them at their every fundraiser....This model works every day of every year for hundreds upon hundreds of towns all across the nation....Actual reality shows that it's your "plausible" fictitious scenario that is stupidity and bullshit.

You're moving the goal; posts now. THAT is a logical fallacy. This started with a mention of "fee for service" vs. taxes. Volunteer departments are an entirely different matter.

I'm moving no goalposts....You've set up a scenario where an absolutely proposterous mythical scenario is legitimate enough to validate your statist viewpoint on how to respond to emergency situations...I merely showed, through actual provable evidence, that you're totally full of shit.

Another gaping hole in you "logic" is the notion that homeowners can afford property taxes to support your model, but somehow are totally impoverished, to the point of complete unaffordability, in a free voluntary market model...IOW, you haven't a clue and are just appealing to emotion.

Really?

Another Example of Fee-for-Service Fire Department Letting a Home Burn (and its Implications)

Apropos, thematically anyway, to my post from yesterday on the question of individual choice, public policy, and suffering as seen through the eyes of Rick Santorum we have a vivid example of the intersection of private choices and the question of social responsibility. Via the Sideshow: Tennessee family home burns while firefighters watch

A Tennessee couple helplessly watched their home burn to the ground, along with all of their possessions, because they did not pay a $75 annual fee to the local fire department.

Who, exactly is full of shit?

It looks like what we have here is a publically funded fire department that will provide service to homes outside the jurisdiction for a small fee. it's not an example of a private for-profit fire department. The later would probably have agreed to put out the fire if the home owners agreed to pay the full cost of putting it out. As the article pointed out, if the fire department put out fires on homes outside their jurisdiction for free, then no one would pay and they would be unable to provide service to their primary customers.

This proves nothing about the efficacy of private fire departments. It sure as hell doesn't show that the home burned down because the owners couldn't afford to pay for the service. If they can't afford to pay a $75 fee, they wouldn't qualify for a mortgage.

 

[Oddball]

That is why I am a Libertarian for the most part. I want the government to get out of the business of subsidizing sorriness.

No welfare, bailouts, subsidizes or entitlements.

We can easily do that without jeopardizing the few minimal necessary government functions like defense, courts, police etc.

However, you missed the point that I made. The point that I made was that humans are not moral or decent enough so that anarchy would work. Many humans are assholes and without the reasonable constraints would brutalize others and would steal from others.

Tony Soprano and MS-14 are not killers and thieves because the government made them do it. They are killers and thieves because they are assholes.

The point you made makes no sense...If you really believe that people are so morally bankrupt that anarchy couldn't work, then why on Earth would you erect a framework where there's a monopoly on the proactive use of aggressive force, which has shown, time and again, attracts such brutal assholes to it like moths to a flame?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You think that those tens of millions of welfare queens living in the big city sucking off the teat of government don't have the mentality and responsibility of children? How about the gang members? The thieves that would take what you have if they could get away with it? Hardly responsible adults, are they?

No, humans are too screwed up to be responsible. History is full of those examples. It ain't gonna change now.

Yet you support the very government that promotes such behavior...And if you think that you can tame the beast to give you only what you want, without the indolent and antisocial getting what they want, you need a reality check.

That is why I am a Libertarian for the most part. I want the government to get out of the business of subsidizing sorriness.

No welfare, bailouts, subsidizes or entitlements.

We can easily do that without jeopardizing the few minimal necessary government functions like defense, courts, police etc.

However, you missed the point that I made. The point that I made was that humans are not moral or decent enough so that anarchy would work. Many humans are assholes and without the reasonable constraints would brutalize others and would steal from others.

Tony Soprano and MS-14 are not killers and thieves because the government made them do it. They are killers and thieves because they are assholes.

Post of the thread! You nailed it!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What you both continue to ignore is the fact that the term "limited government" is an oxymoron. It's purely a temporary state of affairs. Once established, government continues to grow and sap the social production until the people all become slaves. The Constitution was a noble attempt to keep government under control, but it failed.

This from one of the biggest Trump cheerleaders on the forum. You sir are a fraud!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Again, voluntary "authority", like that of an employer, is not what's being challenged here. No anarchist believes that a baseball team should just run wildly around the field because "authority" is invalid.

.

Well yes a true anarchist would, they would never think to agree with baseball rules. This is why I labeled you anarchy lite. You are down with authority as long as it is not labeled “government”.

And what you're describing is people in a depraved state. I already granted that as an aspect of human nature, but you are ignoring the incredibly influential factor of conditions.

.

This has been mankind’s state since the beginning of time. In the beginning there were no governments and no laws and rules and yet mankind’s nature was the same.

If pure freedom brings this utopia you speak of, why did things change?

The condition of freedom is essential to the expression of human potential. What you have seen are not human beings as they should or would be under different circumstances.

You have a Pollyanna view of humans, and there is not a single bit of evidence to suggest your view had even the smallest amount of reality.

This should be obvious, as in this country we have enjoyed less debilitating slavery (what many would erroneously call "freedom"), and have thrived in many ways because of it. Our poor would be considered well-off by the standards of many other countries.

They thrive because the authority keeps their exploitation to a minimum by those with greater means.

That is why those people in our grocery stores are not the people you're talking about - because of conditions. I'm not saying they're not capable of it, I'm saying they're not that way because of law, they're that way because their chains are light compared to much of the world. The closer to freedom we move, the more prosperous, and moral we will be.

But they are the same people in your grocery store. The Marines that threw the MREs are now the people walking next to you. The people that will riot and burn cars when their team wins a championship are the people in the car next to you. The people that will loot the BestBuy because someone got shot are the people eating dinner next to you at the local diner. The people that will trample you to get to the $10 mixer on Black Friday are the people you think will have your back when there is no actual authority.

You kid yourself if you think that mankind is at its core good and peaceful.

To deny this is to suggest that more oppression breeds better people, which is not the case. If it was, prisons would represent an exemplary society, and those people are throwing shit on each other as we speak.

It does not have to be one or the other, it does not have to be no authority or ultimate authority. Extremes are rarely the right answer.

I am not saying that more oppression is good. I am an amateur chef and I love the spice nutmeg. A pinch of nutmeg can be the difference between a good meal and a great meal. Too much nutmeg will kill you. This is the way government is, none at all ruins the meal, too much kills you but just the right amount is wonderful.

But nutmeg is not evil! There is no "proper balance" of good and evil. Like darkness to light, evil is merely the absence of good, it contributes no quality of its own. Where the analogy ends is that In the context of light, we may have "too much" for our purposes, whereas with good, more is always better. We don't want a balance of good and "not good", we want as much good as we can get. This is why I say that you fundamentally misunderstand what government IS if you think it can provide any good at all.

Government is an exploitation. It is an evil (the lack of freedom). There is no part of it designed to benefit you. Let's think of this in another setting...

Consider employment. The employer pays an employee a salary of 50k per year. This employee's labor must create more than 50k per year in value, in order to justify his presence in the company. The employee, by definition, is receiving compensation for his labor below that which it is worth - he is being devalued, to the expressed benefit of the employer. The employer, in effect, would be stealing that portion of the labor, if not for the consent of the employee, which makes it a gift (whether he realizes this or not). No part of this system is designed for the employee's benefit. When he ceases to produce benefit for the employer, his presence is no longer justified, despite any benefit he is creating for himself.

This works just like slavery, but on a voluntary basis, which is why it is not a matter of concern for the anarchist; at least not at this time. The level of consciousness required to fully embrace this understanding of employment as devaluation is beyond that which is required to embrace the moral necessity of consent (which almost everyone already does in matters of rape, etc., but they have an indoctrinated blind spot as it relates to government). So, first things first. Learn to crawl toward freedom (the accurate valuation of the self), then learn to walk.

Government is a master. Its purpose is to enslave you. A democratic republic is a con. Its purpose is to make slavery seem like freedom. Evil is nothing if not deceptive. It creates nothing, only perverts. The perversion of freedom is what you are heralding as freedom itself. All power-grabs require an enemy, the protection against which is cited as the necessity for control. That enemy can be a foreign power, poverty, or "anarchy" as chaos. Anarchy is not really a substantive position; it is an apophatic proposition - it is defined by what it is not. What it is not, is slavery. It has no qualities of its own. However, it is propped up as having the properties of danger, disorder, and destruction; and protection against it is what justifies government. This too, is a sham, as I have just illustrated.

 

[bripat9643]

Fictitious but plausible. Why don't you tell me how you see user fees for emergency services working? I have been watching and learning for 70 fucking years, and I know stupidity and bullshit when I see it.

I live in a rural place where the fire and EMS is 100% voluntary...The members of the community are all very generous to support them at their every fundraiser....This model works every day of every year for hundreds upon hundreds of towns all across the nation....Actual reality shows that it's your "plausible" fictitious scenario that is stupidity and bullshit.

You're moving the goal; posts now. THAT is a logical fallacy. This started with a mention of "fee for service" vs. taxes. Volunteer departments are an entirely different matter.

I'm moving no goalposts....You've set up a scenario where an absolutely proposterous mythical scenario is legitimate enough to validate your statist viewpoint on how to respond to emergency situations...I merely showed, through actual provable evidence, that you're totally full of shit.

Another gaping hole in you "logic" is the notion that homeowners can afford property taxes to support your model, but somehow are totally impoverished, to the point of complete unaffordability, in a free voluntary market model...IOW, you haven't a clue and are just grasping at statist straws and appealing to emotion.

the empirical evidence shows that private fire departments are far cheaper than the bloated wastefull operation the local government runs. Firemen spend most of their working hours doing the work of ambulances rather than putting out fires.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Fictitious but plausible. Why don't you tell me how you see user fees for emergency services working? I have been watching and learning for 70 fucking years, and I know stupidity and bullshit when I see it.

I live in a rural place where the fire and EMS is 100% voluntary...The members of the community are all very generous to support them at their every fundraiser....This model works every day of every year for hundreds upon hundreds of towns all across the nation....Actual reality shows that it's your "plausible" fictitious scenario that is stupidity and bullshit.

You're moving the goal; posts now. THAT is a logical fallacy. This started with a mention of "fee for service" vs. taxes. Volunteer departments are an entirely different matter.

I'm moving no goalposts....You've set up a scenario where an absolutely proposterous mythical scenario is legitimate enough to validate your statist viewpoint on how to respond to emergency situations...I merely showed, through actual provable evidence, that you're totally full of shit.

Another gaping hole in you "logic" is the notion that homeowners can afford property taxes to support your model, but somehow are totally impoverished, to the point of complete unaffordability, in a free voluntary market model...IOW, you haven't a clue and are just appealing to emotion.

Really?

Another Example of Fee-for-Service Fire Department Letting a Home Burn (and its Implications)

Apropos, thematically anyway, to my post from yesterday on the question of individual choice, public policy, and suffering as seen through the eyes of Rick Santorum we have a vivid example of the intersection of private choices and the question of social responsibility. Via the Sideshow: Tennessee family home burns while firefighters watch

A Tennessee couple helplessly watched their home burn to the ground, along with all of their possessions, because they did not pay a $75 annual fee to the local fire department.

Who, exactly is full of shit?

Yeah, and?...Life is full of consequences for actions and inactions...Also, there's absolutely no evidence to show that the house wouldn't have burned to the ground even if they had paid their bill.

Oh please!! You just trying to explain it away while clinging to your odd ideas. Here is more

Putting Out Fires for a Fee

Firefighters in South Fulton, Tenn., have let two homes burn to the ground over the past two years since the city commission started enforcing a rule that the department serve only subscribers who pay the $75 annual fee. The city commission is expected to vote Thursday whether to amend that policy to allow the fire department to put out all blazes and then bill nonsubscribers $3,500 for the service. Paying members wouldn't be billed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

the empirical evidence shows that private fire departments are far cheaper than the bloated wastefull operation the local government runs. Firemen spend most of their working hours doing the work of ambulances rather than putting out fires.

They have a lot of "sit-on-your-ass" time that is being wasted too. A private organization would find a way to get the most out of man hours.

AND, nobody seems to have a problem with EMS being private.

 

[Flash]

You think that those tens of millions of welfare queens living in the big city sucking off the teat of government don't have the mentality and responsibility of children? How about the gang members? The thieves that would take what you have if they could get away with it? Hardly responsible adults, are they?

No, humans are too screwed up to be responsible. History is full of those examples. It ain't gonna change now.

Yet you support the very government that promotes such behavior...And if you think that you can tame the beast to give you only what you want, without the indolent and antisocial getting what they want, you need a reality check.

That is why I am a Libertarian for the most part. I want the government to get out of the business of subsidizing sorriness.

No welfare, bailouts, subsidizes or entitlements.

We can easily do that without jeopardizing the few minimal necessary government functions like defense, courts, police etc.

However, you missed the point that I made. The point that I made was that humans are not moral or decent enough so that anarchy would work. Many humans are assholes and without the reasonable constraints would brutalize others and would steal from others.

Tony Soprano and MS-14 are not killers and thieves because the government made them do it. They are killers and thieves because they are assholes.

Post of the thread! You nailed it!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What you both continue to ignore is the fact that the term "limited government" is an oxymoron. It's purely a temporary state of affairs. Once established, government continues to grow and sap the social production until the people all become slaves. The Constitution was a noble attempt to keep government under control, but it failed.

I am not ignoring it. I know that to be a fact.

I also know that we are not mature enough or moral enough to have a society with no government. Too many assholes to allow that to happen.

Lets first do away with this bloated, debt ridden, liberty stealing, out of control welfare state and see how that goes. Then we can determine if we can go even further.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

[Q

I didn't say anything about "good graces". You've reverted back to your pre-conceived notion, ignoring the argument made for the undesirability and impracticality of choosing a free America as a target for occupation, which doesn't even require a single missile to be valid.

Good luck with hoping that the US would never be a target. History is not exactly on your side.

I am not willing to bet my children's and grandchildren's lives and liberty on that.

Good luck? I explained why it would not be a desirable target, luck has nothing to do with it. In addition, the same reasons that make it an undesirable target is what makes it viable to defend. There is no authoritarian body to surrender on behalf of all in a free society. Tell me how 2 million soldiers can forcibly occupy and perpetually control a land mass of 325 armed and unwilling individuals. There are hundreds of more viable targets for foreign tyranny. You're thinking from irrational fear.

And forget betting your grandchildren's lives and liberty, you've already handed them over on a silver platter by supporting any governmental authority at all. I'm sorry to say that, I know you are a very good man, but your misunderstanding of what government is has clouded your judgement. Government is slavery. It has no other purpose. Please read my response to Gator just above this for a further explanation (post #949). This is critical and worthy of your time.

 

[Flash]

That is why I am a Libertarian for the most part. I want the government to get out of the business of subsidizing sorriness.

No welfare, bailouts, subsidizes or entitlements.

We can easily do that without jeopardizing the few minimal necessary government functions like defense, courts, police etc.

However, you missed the point that I made. The point that I made was that humans are not moral or decent enough so that anarchy would work. Many humans are assholes and without the reasonable constraints would brutalize others and would steal from others.

Tony Soprano and MS-14 are not killers and thieves because the government made them do it. They are killers and thieves because they are assholes.

The point you made makes no sense...If you really believe that people are so morally bankrupt that anarchy couldn't work, then why on Earth would you erect a framework where there's a monopoly on the proactive use of aggressive force, which has shown, time and again, attracts such brutal assholes to it like moths to a flame?

The point I made is the reason why anarchy will never work. You may not want to accept it but the fact is that there are too many assholes on earth that would gladly kill, rape, brutalize and steal if they could get away with it without collective constraints.

I have yet to see a good plan to transitions the present government constraints (as bad as they are) to an anarchically society. It ain't gonna happen. People are too flawed to make anarchy work.

 

[Foxfyre]

Don't look now, but what you are describing is social contract. And even though there is no formal government, I'm pretty sure it is like all other such rural areas in which there is mutual agreement on how the funds will be used and who has authority to use them; i.e. at least a rudimentary form of government. And there is also most likely legal recourse if somebody should decide to abscond with those funds which also requires some some of government, though in such rural areas the government is usually a government by the people which is what the Constitution intended for us all.

Your "social contract" relies upon compulsion, at gunpoint if necessary...My actual living scenario relies upon people engaging in voluntary action to help one another, and otherwise minding their own business.

My understanding of 'social contract'--has nothing to do with gunpoint or anything else. How does your community determine who has the authority to disperse the funds raised at the fund raisers? What do you do if such authority misuses or steals the funds? Just shrug it off and say 'oh well'?

 

[bripat9643]

I live in a rural place where the fire and EMS is 100% voluntary...The members of the community are all very generous to support them at their every fundraiser....This model works every day of every year for hundreds upon hundreds of towns all across the nation....Actual reality shows that it's your "plausible" fictitious scenario that is stupidity and bullshit.

You're moving the goal; posts now. THAT is a logical fallacy. This started with a mention of "fee for service" vs. taxes. Volunteer departments are an entirely different matter.

I'm moving no goalposts....You've set up a scenario where an absolutely proposterous mythical scenario is legitimate enough to validate your statist viewpoint on how to respond to emergency situations...I merely showed, through actual provable evidence, that you're totally full of shit.

Another gaping hole in you "logic" is the notion that homeowners can afford property taxes to support your model, but somehow are totally impoverished, to the point of complete unaffordability, in a free voluntary market model...IOW, you haven't a clue and are just appealing to emotion.

Really?

Another Example of Fee-for-Service Fire Department Letting a Home Burn (and its Implications)

Apropos, thematically anyway, to my post from yesterday on the question of individual choice, public policy, and suffering as seen through the eyes of Rick Santorum we have a vivid example of the intersection of private choices and the question of social responsibility. Via the Sideshow: Tennessee family home burns while firefighters watch

A Tennessee couple helplessly watched their home burn to the ground, along with all of their possessions, because they did not pay a $75 annual fee to the local fire department.

Who, exactly is full of shit?

Yeah, and?...Life is full of consequences for actions and inactions...Also, there's absolutely no evidence to show that the house wouldn't have burned to the ground even if they had paid their bill.

Oh please!! You just trying to explain it away while clinging to your odd ideas. Here is more

Putting Out Fires for a Fee

Firefighters in South Fulton, Tenn., have let two homes burn to the ground over the past two years since the city commission started enforcing a rule that the department serve only subscribers who pay the $75 annual fee. The city commission is expected to vote Thursday whether to amend that policy to allow the fire department to put out all blazes and then bill nonsubscribers $3,500 for the service. Paying members wouldn't be billed.

So you object to people paying for the actual cost of the service?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Social Contract" is a truce. It is an agreement to not kill each other and let each other pursue food and sex without violent interference.

Anything above and beyond that understood agreement is not contractual. It is compulsory from birth.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So you object to people paying for the actual cost of the service?

Wow. At $75 per year, you would think they would just pay it. But, I like the $3,500 fee for failure to pay.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

You think that those tens of millions of welfare queens living in the big city sucking off the teat of government don't have the mentality and responsibility of children? How about the gang members? The thieves that would take what you have if they could get away with it? Hardly responsible adults, are they?

No, humans are too screwed up to be responsible. History is full of those examples. It ain't gonna change now.

Yet you support the very government that promotes such behavior...And if you think that you can tame the beast to give you only what you want, without the indolent and antisocial getting what they want, you need a reality check.

That is why I am a Libertarian for the most part. I want the government to get out of the business of subsidizing sorriness.

No welfare, bailouts, subsidizes or entitlements.

We can easily do that without jeopardizing the few minimal necessary government functions like defense, courts, police etc.

However, you missed the point that I made. The point that I made was that humans are not moral or decent enough so that anarchy would work. Many humans are assholes and without the reasonable constraints would brutalize others and would steal from others.

Tony Soprano and MS-14 are not killers and thieves because the government made them do it. They are killers and thieves because they are assholes.

Post of the thread! You nailed it!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What you both continue to ignore is the fact that the term "limited government" is an oxymoron. It's purely a temporary state of affairs. Once established, government continues to grow and sap the social production until the people all become slaves. The Constitution was a noble attempt to keep government under control, but it failed.

I am not ignoring it. I know that to be a fact.

I also know that we are not mature enough or moral enough to have a society with no government. Too many assholes to allow that to happen.

Lets first do away with this bloated, debt ridden, liberty stealing, out of control welfare state and see how that goes. Then we can determine if we can go even further.

As far as order of events goes, that's another matter. Again, we're not calling for the dramatic overthrow of the government this afternoon. We're trying to make people understand fundamental morality as dictated by man's inherent self-ownership. The lack of support and compliance that will yield will see the dissolution of authoritarianism happen in natural course. But it starts with each individual taking in new information openly, processing it with honest, valid critical thinking, and behaving in accord with the new understanding garnered by this process.