| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
   |
Posted - 2010.10.05 18:57:00 -
[1]
Remember, this is the ideal outcome for the libertarian nutcases: if you don't pay for fire protection, the firefighters (who are a for-profit corporation) just sit and watch while your stuff burns down as a lesson to anyone else who might be tempted to refuse to pay.
And of course the same applies to every other service you're used to having. For example, I hope you don't need the police if you haven't paid for police services from a police corporation.
-----------
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 19:32:00 -
[2]
Two very important things:
1) The firefighters were already there. The extra cost of trying to stop the fire is trivial. The only reason not to do so is if you are treating the fire department as a for-profit business (and want to teach a lesson to any future non-payers) instead of a government service.
2) Fire does not care whether you paid your taxes or not. By refusing to stop it at this one house, they put every other house in danger.
And fine, let's take this whole "only get what you pay for" thing to its logical conclusion: what if the owner of the house couldn't afford to pay? Should the firefighters refuse to help him? Should a doctor refuse to save his life because he can't afford to pay?
Once again, libertarianism works beautifully if you're already rich, and screws over anyone who is poor.
-----------
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 21:37:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Carine Parnasse
Quote:
2) Fire does not care whether you paid your taxes or not. By refusing to stop it at this one house, they put every other house in danger.
No they didn't. They stood there and watched, and when it got close to the border of his non cheap neighbour's property, they contained it.
And what if they'd guessed wrong about how long they could let it burn before getting involved? What if the end result was the neighbor's house burning down as well?
The simple fact is it would have been a trivial amount of effort to put out the fire immediately, since they were already at the site and ready to do so. They took a ****ing stupid risk for the sole purpose of punishing the first homeowner for not paying his protection fee.
PS: I'm still waiting for the libertarian idiots to answer my simple question: if the first person had not paid the $75 because he was too poor to afford it, should the firefighters just allow his house to burn down?
-----------
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2010.10.05 23:00:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Sergeant Spot
If you can't understand the above, you are an idiot.
Or you just feel that the fire department is an essential service that should be provided to whoever needs it, not a for-profit business where the most important thing is to make as much money as possible.
-----------
|
| |
|