4 ms·

I don't see the problem here, though I am questioning who's providing police services in that county now. If people want to vote to refuse to fund having a pol

by magduf 8y ago

I don't see the problem here, though I am questioning who's providing police services in that county now. If people want to vote to refuse to fund having a police service, how is that wrong? If they want to go without, that's their choice. Of course, that could have some pretty nasty consequences, but again, they voted for it, and it's their choice. I do hope, however, that the state and federal authorities will keep an eye on things, and if anything bad happens which results in a huge lawsuit, that the people of that county will be literally forced (even if it means forcibly seizing all their property) to pay the judgments. As a very wise Frenchman once wrote, "every nation gets the government it deserves". The people in these rural counties are getting the government they deserve.

pimmen 8y ago
Parent post didn't use the word wrong, the statement was that they're killing their communities out of ignorance. It sounds from your post that you whole heartedly agree it is ignorance. So, I definitely see a problem with it!
ip26 8y ago
As a very wise Frenchman once wrote, "every nation gets the government it deserves". Yes, but we can still castigate them for it.
cbg0 8y ago
> If people want to vote to refuse to fund having a police service, how is that wrong? If they want to go without, that's their choice. You can't really let people have a say with regards to everything they pay for, because a lot of people have an "I got mine" attitude, so as long as no house has burned down in their neighborhood lately, they might be tempted to vote against funding the fire department as well. If the whole town goes up in a blaze, then will you expect the federal government to step in and help them? If yes, that means everyone foots the bill for their stupidity; If not, can we still call ourselves humans? Some basic services should be funded, and if you don't want that, you should be able to go live in the woods, or at least that's how I see it.
- sneak 8y ago
  > You can't really let people have a say with regards to everything they pay for, because a lot of people have an "I got mine" attitude, so as long as no house has burned down in their neighborhood lately, they might be tempted to vote against funding the fire department as well. While I despise your position, I admire your honesty about the fact that these policies are paternalistic and violate consent. What makes you the person who gets to decide for them what they should or shouldn’t spend their money on?
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    > What makes you the person who gets to decide for them what they should or shouldn’t spend their money on? I don't know who is qualified to be that person, but somebody has to if you want to avoid tyranny-of-the-majority. "You can do any goddamn thing you want as long as you can convince 51 voters out of 100 to back you" is not sustainable. (See e.g. unpunished lynchings in the post-Civil War South.)
    - magduf 8y ago
      It might not be sustainable in your opinion, but it is literally what democracy is. Do you support democracy or not?
  - hnbroseph 8y ago
    The person deciding is ostensibly the person elected to do the deciding.
  - cbg0 8y ago
    > these policies are paternalistic and violate consent. Like I said, if you don't like living in a society where the rules aren't to your liking, you can go live by yourself in the woods where there's no one to violate your consent.
    - magduf 8y ago
      What if the majority of voters in that society vote for "I got mine" policies? That's what we're arguing here; this isn't a situation about a handful of malcontents.
kamarg 8y ago
> If they want to go without, that's their choice and then later > I do hope, however, that the state and federal authorities will keep an eye on things So they get to choose to go without paying taxes for local policing but we need to tax everyone to police them? Seems like we're only letting them choose if they want to pay into the keep everybody safe fund. They're going to get the service regardless of which way they vote.
rnernento 8y ago
What about the minority of residents that didn't vote for that government. What about the children?
- magduf 8y ago
  Do you support seizing children from their poorly-voting parents and placing them in better (or foster) homes?
jigi8484ncnc 8y ago
You appear to have inferred a moral conclusion that wasn’t in the post as I read it. That said, there is a history of rural areas cutting off their nose to spite their face then taking a bailout later. See the soybean situation. It’s hypocrisy and in a social system such as ours, they’re not as strictly isolated as the corporate and state propaganda they consume lead them to believe.
- magduf 8y ago
  >That said, there is a history of rural areas cutting off their nose to spite their face then taking a bailout later. This is why I think these rural voters should be forced to pay for their bailouts, even if it means seizing their property and evicting them into homelessness. They voted for these stupid policies, so they should be forced to live with the consequences of their votes.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
" I do hope, however, that the state and federal authorities will keep an eye on things, and if anything bad happens which results in a huge lawsuit, that the people of that county will be literally forced (even if it means forcibly seizing all their property) to pay the judgments." You know that won't happen, and the rest of the taxpayers are going to end up subsidizing them.
- magduf 8y ago
  I know, and that's what I don't agree with at all. They're getting to benefit in the short-term from their poor, selfish choices, and then getting the insurance of getting bailed out later when the SHTF. It's just like the auto industry bailouts; those companies should never have been bailed out, they should have been broken up and sold off for pennies on the dollar to better-managed foreign companies instead of being bailed out by taxpayers for the benefit of executives and maybe the employees.

by magduf 8y ago

pimmen 8y ago

Parent post didn't use the word wrong, the statement was that they're killing their communities out of ignorance. It sounds from your post that you whole heartedly agree it is ignorance. So, I definitely see a problem with it!

ip26 8y ago

As a very wise Frenchman once wrote, "every nation gets the government it deserves". Yes, but we can still castigate them for it.

cbg0 8y ago

> If people want to vote to refuse to fund having a police service, how is that wrong? If they want to go without, that's their choice. You can't really let people have a say with regards to everything they pay for, because a lot of people have an "I got mine" attitude, so as long as no house has burned down in their neighborhood lately, they might be tempted to vote against funding the fire department as well. If the whole town goes up in a blaze, then will you expect the federal government to step in and help them? If yes, that means everyone foots the bill for their stupidity; If not, can we still call ourselves humans? Some basic services should be funded, and if you don't want that, you should be able to go live in the woods, or at least that's how I see it.

sneak 8y ago
> You can't really let people have a say with regards to everything they pay for, because a lot of people have an "I got mine" attitude, so as long as no house has burned down in their neighborhood lately, they might be tempted to vote against funding the fire department as well. While I despise your position, I admire your honesty about the fact that these policies are paternalistic and violate consent. What makes you the person who gets to decide for them what they should or shouldn’t spend their money on?
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  > What makes you the person who gets to decide for them what they should or shouldn’t spend their money on? I don't know who is qualified to be that person, but somebody has to if you want to avoid tyranny-of-the-majority. "You can do any goddamn thing you want as long as you can convince 51 voters out of 100 to back you" is not sustainable. (See e.g. unpunished lynchings in the post-Civil War South.)
  - magduf 8y ago
    It might not be sustainable in your opinion, but it is literally what democracy is. Do you support democracy or not?
- hnbroseph 8y ago
  The person deciding is ostensibly the person elected to do the deciding.
- cbg0 8y ago
  > these policies are paternalistic and violate consent. Like I said, if you don't like living in a society where the rules aren't to your liking, you can go live by yourself in the woods where there's no one to violate your consent.
  - magduf 8y ago
    What if the majority of voters in that society vote for "I got mine" policies? That's what we're arguing here; this isn't a situation about a handful of malcontents.

kamarg 8y ago

> If they want to go without, that's their choice and then later > I do hope, however, that the state and federal authorities will keep an eye on things So they get to choose to go without paying taxes for local policing but we need to tax everyone to police them? Seems like we're only letting them choose if they want to pay into the keep everybody safe fund. They're going to get the service regardless of which way they vote.

rnernento 8y ago

What about the minority of residents that didn't vote for that government. What about the children?

magduf 8y ago
Do you support seizing children from their poorly-voting parents and placing them in better (or foster) homes?

jigi8484ncnc 8y ago

You appear to have inferred a moral conclusion that wasn’t in the post as I read it. That said, there is a history of rural areas cutting off their nose to spite their face then taking a bailout later. See the soybean situation. It’s hypocrisy and in a social system such as ours, they’re not as strictly isolated as the corporate and state propaganda they consume lead them to believe.

magduf 8y ago
>That said, there is a history of rural areas cutting off their nose to spite their face then taking a bailout later. This is why I think these rural voters should be forced to pay for their bailouts, even if it means seizing their property and evicting them into homelessness. They voted for these stupid policies, so they should be forced to live with the consequences of their votes.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

" I do hope, however, that the state and federal authorities will keep an eye on things, and if anything bad happens which results in a huge lawsuit, that the people of that county will be literally forced (even if it means forcibly seizing all their property) to pay the judgments." You know that won't happen, and the rest of the taxpayers are going to end up subsidizing them.

magduf 8y ago
I know, and that's what I don't agree with at all. They're getting to benefit in the short-term from their poor, selfish choices, and then getting the insurance of getting bailed out later when the SHTF. It's just like the auto industry bailouts; those companies should never have been bailed out, they should have been broken up and sold off for pennies on the dollar to better-managed foreign companies instead of being bailed out by taxpayers for the benefit of executives and maybe the employees.