Should Tennessee Firemen Have Let the House Burn? Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2026900,00.html#ixzz1dtzE9e4t
What would be the response from a liberty oriented person on this matter?
Its my understanding that they should of paid in a free society, i mean isnt that common sense. However it is not exactly a free society and it doesnt operate that way exactly, and if the cost is shared then why have them excluded (looking at it with statist lense, or status quo). Anyways what would be your response? Deep and complicated answers i look forward to.
My friends reasoning is that this is basicly the same thing as privatized healthcare. That they will just let you die if you dont pay them *metaphorically speaking*
There is no real should. If I were those firemen then I can tell you I would have put out the fire in an instant, however there is no reason why they should be required to do so.
In a society of true liberty they would not be compelled to put out the fire but the chances of some agreement for such an emergency scenario not arising are very unlikely. If people did not want to put out fires then who would not try to save lives through creating safety nets and private organizations?
Anytime someone mentions anything about the free market that isn't immediately followed by "needs to be severely regulated and contained" or "is worse than a casino" or "is completely flawed, without compassion or morals"...it's usually met with those notions shortly thereafter. When someone proposes the idea of getting the government restrained even just to its constitutional role of protecting the rights of the citizens, and getting it out of, say, car sales, opponents generally retort with tired and predictably well-exhausted arguments. One of the most commonly invoked is that of fire departments. The assertion usually goes as follows: "Oh yeah? You don't think the government should be involved in x, huh? And those fire departments are so socialist too, huh? I suppose those should be abolished as well? You wanna privatize fire protection and leave it in the hands of greedy business men? You really think public safety should be driven under the motive of profit?!" This argument was of course used in response to the backlash garnered by the "public option" of ObamaCare. Of course, it was given new life in October of last year, when a Tennessee man's house burned to the ground while a government fire department sat and watched because he had not paid a $75 fee. And somehow this is proof of a failure of free market, and the evils to come should anything not be left to the all-knowing wise and moral-driven bureaucrats in government. I thought this article linked below articulated quite well the complete fallacy of this argument, "the best argument against the free market"...
oh thats strange, i was looking at the article in a different browser and now i see the full article i apparently did not read. :(
You mean you didn't read the full Time article? It's probably more important that you read the "Burning Down the House" one I just linked anyway.
Concluding paragraph reads:
:... Living in a county — or city, or town — should bring with it a minimal level of rights that don't depend on whether your check made it in the mail. Not luxuries, not frills — but things like having the flames put out when your house is on fire."
Translation:
Living anywhere should bring with it a right to enslave others.
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
All situations and responses are unique with real people, in real situations, within a real social context...any political philosophy giving you a de facto problem or solution, is giving you a pocket full of ideas...aka; B.S.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle