Dumb and dumberer

Discussion Open Forum
1

Just a couple of news stories that made me shake my head at the stupidity of some people. Kind of like the Darwin Awards, only less violent. Call it the Social Darwinism Award

Contestant A: in the Not So Much Better Business category. [quote=“BBC: Sick PCs should be banned from the net says Microsoft”]Virus-infected computers that pose a risk to other PCs should be blocked from the net, a senior researcher at software giant Microsoft suggests.[/quote]
Ya got that? Microsoft – Mi-cro-soft – is saying infected PCs ought to be booted off the net and into quarantine.
He must have Apple stock in his retirement plan. He must.

Contestant B: in the Ideological Blinders Made Me Do It Cliff Jumping category.

[quote=“Think Progress: Tennessee County’s Subscription-Based Firefighters Watch As Family Home Burns Down”]In this rural section of Tennessee, Gene Cranick’s home caught on fire. As the Cranicks fled their home, their neighbors alerted the county’s firefighters, who soon arrived at the scene. Yet when the firefighters arrived, they refused to put out the fire, saying that the family failed to pay the annual subscription fee to the fire department. Because the county’s fire services for rural residences is based on household subscription fees, the firefighters, fully equipped to help the Cranicks, stood by and watched as the home burned to the ground:

[quote]Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department won’t respond, then watches it burn. That’s exactly what happened to a local family tonight. A local neighborhood is furious after firefighters watched as an Obion County, Tennessee, home burned to the ground.

The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn’t do anything to stop his house from burning. Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay. The mayor said if homeowners don’t pay, they’re out of luck. […]

We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception. “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t,” Mayor David Crocker said.[/quote][/quote]If only there were some way of providing and paying for basic coverage and services to all residents. I wonder, what would that do to a society? Hmmm… Probably turn 'em into a bunch of raving lazy socialists, is what. :ponder:

2

[quote=“Jaboney”]
Contestant B: in the Ideological Blinders Made Me Do It Cliff Jumping category.

[quote]The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn’t do anything to stop his house from burning. Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay. The mayor said if homeowners don’t pay, they’re out of luck. […]

We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception. “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t,” Mayor David Crocker said.[/quote]

If only there were some way of providing and paying for basic coverage and services to all residents. I wonder, what would that do to a society? Hmmm… Probably turn 'em into a bunch of raving lazy socialists, is what. :ponder:[/quote]

For whatever reason they don’t have a full time fire department funded by taxes in that area. It’s Tennessee so perhaps there just isn’t a large enough population in their county to support it via taxes. Instead they have an optional insurance program, and should you choose to opt out, then you can’t very well be upset that they don’t give you the service for free. If Mr. Cranick had paid the 75 dollar fee then he would have been covered. Instead he chose to go “uninsured” and when a fire happened he expected society to come and rescue him from his own stupidity.

It’s hard to feel sympathy for the man when he started the fire in two barrels in his own backyard. He was a free rider under the mistaken impression that he didn’t have to pay for fire protection and yet would still receive the benefits of said fire protection.

3

[quote=“lbksig”][quote=“Jaboney”]
Contestant B: in the Ideological Blinders Made Me Do It Cliff Jumping category.

[quote]The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn’t do anything to stop his house from burning. Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay. The mayor said if homeowners don’t pay, they’re out of luck. […]

We asked the mayor of South Fulton if the chief could have made an exception. “Anybody that’s not in the city of South Fulton, it’s a service we offer, either they accept it or they don’t,” Mayor David Crocker said.[/quote]

If only there were some way of providing and paying for basic coverage and services to all residents. I wonder, what would that do to a society? Hmmm… Probably turn 'em into a bunch of raving lazy socialists, is what. :ponder:[/quote]

For whatever reason they don’t have a full time fire department funded by taxes in that area. It’s Tennessee so perhaps there just isn’t a large enough population in their county to support it via taxes. Instead they have an optional insurance program, and should you choose to opt out, then you can’t very well be upset that they don’t give you the service for free. If Mr. Cranick had paid the 75 dollar fee then he would have been covered. Instead he chose to go “uninsured” and when a fire happened he expected society to come and rescue him from his own stupidity.

It’s hard to feel sympathy for the man when he started the fire in two barrels in his own backyard. He was a free rider under the mistaken impression that he didn’t have to pay for fire protection and yet would still receive the benefits of said fire protection.[/quote]

Aw, come on. They should have put the fire out and then charged him double. What if there might have been people still in the house? Would they have stood by and let them burn for lack of $75?

4

I can’t imagine living in a society that would stand around, with the tools at their disposal, and watch a neighbours home burn over $75. It’s vindictive and shows a complete lack of empathy. And yes, would it have been different if there was a child inside? In Tennessee likely not.

In rural areas it’s a known risk that you may not have the same access to services as a large urban centre (fire trucks would not make it in time or may not be able to get close to your home) but it’s unheard of in the places I have known to not help those in need.

5

Yeah, something like that. Or charged the actual expense of putting the fire out, which would presumably be much more than $150 when you figure in equipment and depreciation, premises, other overhead, training fees, salaries etc. all divided by the number of fires put out annually.

6

[quote=“kelake”]I can’t imagine living in a society that would stand around, with the tools at their disposal, and watch a neighbours home burn over $75. It’s vindictive and shows a complete lack of empathy. And yes, would it have been different if there was a child inside? In Tennessee likely not.

In rural areas it’s a known risk that you may not have the same access to services as a large urban centre (fire trucks would not make it in time or may not be able to get close to your home) but it’s unheard of in the places I have known to not help those in need.[/quote]
I couldn’t agree more with you. Who in his or her right mind would find no room for terror in such a society? If we deny municipal fire departments tax revenue, who would find terroristic acts to be an unknown or unreasonable burden on everyday life?

Only the very wealthy, I think. A house burning down becomes the new normal if municipal fire departments go away, it seems to me. In the long run, the rich as well as the American dream would be cutting its collective throat with fire departments that prevent casualty and loss of property only if a receipt exists before the hoses are unreeled.

In my opinion, this is just more evidence of human ignorance on the part of American libertarians. After all, the economic idea of a public good - like that of a municipal fire department - is both empirically and intuitively understood as underfunded. For example, consider education, highways, public radio, or any number of other commodities valued by a sufficient number of consumers to suffer from free riders (those who benefit but are not required to pay nonetheless). That kind of leakage is part and parcel with an economic public good. Libertarians don’t seem to understand that many of their wagers risk all of American capitalism against the best outcome of most citizens. In effect they’re betting that Americans have been inoculated by propaganda against communism sufficiently to endure any hardship.

And that ain’t a bet a sane man would make. IMO.

7

Lesson to be learned: pay one’s bills.

8

double post, please delete.

9

Yes, pay the $75 fee. I fully support the firefighters’ decision.

10

Yeah, something like that. Or charged the actual expense of putting the fire out, which would presumably be much more than $150 when you figure in equipment and depreciation, premises, other overhead, training fees, salaries etc. all divided by the number of fires put out annually.[/quote]

Dragonbones is right to point out that $75 dollars doesn’t come close to covering the actual expense. That’s the premium you pay for the service regardless if you use it or not. If the Cranicks decided to wait until there was actually a fire at the house to purchase fire coverage then they should pay the market rate. Why should you get a service if you opt out of contributing until after you need it?

On the tape of the 911 phone call the Cranicks were willing to pay whatever it cost to put the fire out. If the fire department decided that $10,000 US was an appropriate amount, due to their local monopoly power in the service of putting out fires, then what? That’s why you purchase insurance and pay the premium in the first place. It’s so you don’t have to pay the market rate when something bad happens. I doubt there would be this much sympathy if we used a different scenario, such as the person neglected to pay car insurance until after they got into an accident.

I don’t follow your reasoning. This isn’t a case where the homeowner neglected to pay the property taxes that funded the fire department and the fire department wouldn’t stop the fire until they had proof that taxes were paid. This is an opt-in system. If you don’t pay the fee, you don’t get the service. If you want the service, pay the fee. That or as a municipality make it mandatory that everyone pay the fee. If you give the option of opting out, and someone chooses to opt out, then they are taking the risk on themselves that $75 dollars a year for fire protection is more costly than replacing a home.

[quote]
In my opinion, this is just more evidence of human ignorance on the part of American libertarians. After all, the economic idea of a public good - like that of a municipal fire department - is both empirically and intuitively understood as underfunded. For example, consider education, highways, public radio, or any number of other commodities valued by a sufficient number of consumers to suffer from free riders (those who benefit but are not required to pay nonetheless). That kind of leakage is part and parcel with an economic public good. Libertarians don’t seem to understand that many of their wagers risk all of American capitalism against the best outcome of most citizens. In effect they’re betting that Americans have been inoculated by propaganda against communism sufficiently to endure any hardship. [/quote]

What are you going on about? The municipal fire department wasn’t underfunded. The person chose not to contract with them for coverage so they didn’t get the service. It’s not a libertarian position to be against public goods. It’s against wasteful spending on things unrelated to the delivery of public goods.

Education is a good example of libertarian complaint. If you adjust for inflation, since 1970 in the US has doubled how much it’s spending on public schools with no noticeable increase in reading or math test scores. That tells us that whatever the money is being spent on isn’t improving test scores (not the best metric to use but the commonly used one). That’s a legitimate reason to critique and look at how the money is being spent. It doesn’t mean you are against public goods, just that you’re against wasteful spending that’s diverting funding from it’s most beneficial use.

11

Oooo that is nasty, I say they should have put the fire out and sorted out an appropriate bill later. Certainly more than $75 or 150 though. There is just no room in the budget for medical, fire departments and education, cuts must be made to pay for weapons and war. :s

12

It wasn’t their decision, they wanted to put the fire out. It was the governor’s/mayor’s decision. They don’t want to set a precedent whereby non-fee payers knows the fire will be put out anyway.
There are obviously better ways to handle this I’m sure.

13

He should have paid if he wanted the service for sure, and had little grounds to complain at that point, but fire coverage is a ridiculous public service to apply a premium approach to. Do they do that with their police too? Lives can be lost in a fire. The clerical aspects of the system alone have to be crazy. Everyone needs fire protection. Firemen should simply be charged to put out any and all fires. Charge it under the property tax. I’ve never heard of such a thing. I almost can’t believe it really happened.

14

It wasn’t their decision, they wanted to put the fire out. It was the governor’s/mayor’s decision. They don’t want to set a precedent whereby non-fee payers knows the fire will be put out anyway.
There are obviously better ways to handle this I’m sure.[/quote]

Yes, like put the fire out, bill them for the real costs AND the monthly fee since it began, and garnish wages (and/or shut off utilities) if they don’t pay. That’ll learn 'em!

15

Firefighters have a duty to put out fires whether they are paid or not, whether the homeowner did something stupid to start the fire or not. It’s all part of living in a decent society. Wherever I’ve lived in the US, there’s never been a “firefighting fee”. It’s all funded through that system called, you know… taxation.

What happened in this case is what you might expect in a place like Somalia, not a modern, first-world democracy. It’s a stark warning of what lies in store if libertarianism takes over.

16

A question for the libertarians and those suspicious of gov’t generally: would you want to operate a subscription service in which the life/property-saving service you paid would be dispatched, or not, based on whether or not low-wage clerical staff accurately updated and retrieved the information in your file?

I’d think that anyone familiar with the lack of support and rapid degradation of facilities and services in a large building/community in Taiwan would more than eagerly the application of a general tax.

(btw, I’ve read that Denmark operates subscription-based fire halls. Not sure if that’s true, or how it works. I’m sure there’s a way to make it work, but watch and burn ain’t it.)

17

It wasn’t their decision, they wanted to put the fire out. It was the governor’s/mayor’s decision. They don’t want to set a precedent whereby non-fee payers knows the fire will be put out anyway.
There are obviously better ways to handle this I’m sure.[/quote]

Yes, like put the fire out, bill them for the real costs AND the monthly fee since it began, and garnish wages (and/or shut off utilities) if they don’t pay. That’ll learn 'em![/quote]

Yeah that sounds like a good compromise. As an aside I would just like to add that some homes are very difficult to burn. Straw bale homes, ironically, are very fire resistant because the compressed straw allows little oxygen in (and, besides, the bales are usually covered in a cement render). If homes were designed differently there wouldn’t need to be a suburban fire department in the first place.

18

[quote=“lbksig”]
Education is a good example of libertarian complaint. If you adjust for inflation, since 1970 in the US has doubled how much it’s spending on public schools with no noticeable increase in reading or math test scores. That tells us that whatever the money is being spent on isn’t improving test scores (not the best metric to use but the commonly used one). That’s a legitimate reason to critique and look at how the money is being spent. It doesn’t mean you are against public goods, just that you’re against wasteful spending that’s diverting funding from it’s most beneficial use.[/quote]
Here are a number of things not covered by that simplistic statistic. The special-needs student population has quadrupled since 1970. The federal government now mandates what special education will provide in terms of teacher-student ratios, individual education plans, classroom hours, and so forth, all at a much higher standard than the near-prison conditions common for those kids in 1970. Autistic and other special-education students are not exempted from reading or math testing, but having worked with that population, I can guarantee you that they drag scores down, artificially, I would say.

Also, the number of children entering the school system with NO knowledge of English has increased dramatically. Rates vary from state to state, but in most states, the number of these kids has doubled or tripled since 1980. It takes time, special attention, and more teachers to get these kids up to speed, and it’s usually a matter of several years before they test as well as their peers.

Do you consider providing life-skills education to autistic children “wasteful spending”? Do you consider educating kids who don’t speak English when they arrive at school to not be “it’s [sic] most beneficial use”?

Perhaps you personally are not against spending money to educate these kids – I can’t tell from your post – but I have to admit that I think many Libertarians are selfish idiots. Their world is a good world only if everything goes perfectly for everyone every time… which of course, it does not. Just one unforeseen disaster and they are all screwed, because they will have dismantled that “wasteful” infrastructure created to deal with such matters. That “every man for himself” mentality is the worst of American culture, and I’m glad when sensible people turn away from it, increasing their taxes willingly to provide better services to all of their citizens.

19

[quote=“Jaboney”]A question for the libertarians and those suspicious of gov’t generally: would you want to operate a subscription service in which the life/property-saving service you paid would be dispatched, or not, based on whether or not low-wage clerical staff accurately updated and retrieved the information in your file?

I’d think that anyone familiar with the lack of support and rapid degradation of facilities and services in a large building/community in Taiwan would more than eagerly the application of a general tax.

(btw, I’ve read that Denmark operates subscription-based fire halls. Not sure if that’s true, or how it works. I’m sure there’s a way to make it work, but watch and burn ain’t it.)[/quote]

The fact is…if the proportion of homes falling out of the firefighters approved list got above a certain threshold that would endanger the whole ability to fight fires (as was even seen in this case when the neighbour’s house started to catch fire). So the policy is not very well thought out and a weakness of systems built around the individual only.

20

[quote=“lbksig”]
On the tape of the 911 phone call the Cranicks were willing to pay whatever it cost to put the fire out. [/quote]
To me, this is the crux of it. They weren’t asking for the same service as someone who had paid the fee (ie. no-cost firefighting), and they weren’t asking to be covered by insurance after the fact. This is like saying that someone who didn’t buy car insurance before an accident is not allowed to get their car repaired on their own dime.
It’s not like they were trying to avoid responsibility or be free riders - they were willing to pay. And if the market rate were $10,000, they’d probably rather pay that than lose their house and everything they owned. That the firefighters were there and did nothing is not only disgusting, it also doesn’t make much sense economically. Presumably it costs money to deploy them to the house - if they’d actually put the fire out, they could have been compensated for it.