6 ms·

> 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 pe

by 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.
MR4D 8y ago
I think that is the point - some of these people do live in the woods. Also, they might have a volunteer fire department. Or perhaps none, and they are fine with that. I am too as long as they are comfortable with their choices when things go wrong.
- ip26 8y ago
  as long as they are comfortable with their choices when things go wrong Right, yet it seems like that often isn't the case. See hurricanes & NFIP/FEMA, see wildfires & the USFS. In each case, with residents who just want to do their own thing and ignore things like building codes & defensible space.
- cbg0 8y ago
  > I am too as long as they are comfortable with their choices when things go wrong. People that make these choices don't necessarily stop to calculate all the risks they are subjecting themselves to, and instead only think that at the end of the year they'll have more money in their pockets. Essentially, they're comparing the possibility of something really bad happening (which most people avoid thinking about) with the guarantee of having more money - a relatively easy choice for most. I think any developed state should put a priority on protecting its citizens, even from their own greed or ignorance. The state needs these people to be safe and healthy so that they can work, pay taxes, and create offspring to continue the cycle. In order to ensure that works, some basic services need to be provided. People that have had their house burn down won't be making more offspring any time soon due to financial risk; people that are unhealthy can't work and end up costing the state money on treatments; crime lowers the property value of an area, making it less attractive to businesses or people looking for a place to move to, and so on.
  - magduf 8y ago
    >I think any developed state should put a priority on protecting its citizens, even from their own greed or ignorance. You're literally arguing against democracy here. If the citizens are greedy and ignorant and vote for policies that reflect that, then if you support democracy you must support giving them those policies. Otherwise, you're arguing for authoritarianism.
FireBeyond 8y ago
> they might be tempted to vote against funding the fire department as well. Ironically, Grant's Pass in this very region has privatized fire departments, three of them, and homeowners put a sign by their mailbox indicating which FD serves them (or none).. Actually, not three. Because, well, people saw an opportunity to get rich, and this was the result: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhD_5T4F7aw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhD_5T4F7aw * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaG6fYBKXg8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaG6fYBKXg8 You might notice some 60s and 70s era fire engines in these videos. Realize that this private Fire Department only came into existence in the mid 2000s. It has since been shut down by the State Fire Marshal.
- JKCalhoun 8y ago
  I'm imagining my neighbors on either side having no fire protection and while they're properties are allowed to blaze, mine is sitting there in the middle. Sure would be nice if the fire department could have stopped the fire sooner....
  - magduf 8y ago
    Actually, in some places where certain residents don't pay for fire services, the fire department will come out anyway and watch their house burn, while making sure that the fire doesn't spread to their neighbors' (who did pay) houses. This happens in places like Arizona where "county islands" exist, where a few people refused to allow their property to be annexed into a municipality, so those people don't get any protection from the fire department.

by cbg0 8y ago

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.

MR4D 8y ago

I think that is the point - some of these people do live in the woods. Also, they might have a volunteer fire department. Or perhaps none, and they are fine with that. I am too as long as they are comfortable with their choices when things go wrong.

ip26 8y ago
as long as they are comfortable with their choices when things go wrong Right, yet it seems like that often isn't the case. See hurricanes & NFIP/FEMA, see wildfires & the USFS. In each case, with residents who just want to do their own thing and ignore things like building codes & defensible space.
cbg0 8y ago
> I am too as long as they are comfortable with their choices when things go wrong. People that make these choices don't necessarily stop to calculate all the risks they are subjecting themselves to, and instead only think that at the end of the year they'll have more money in their pockets. Essentially, they're comparing the possibility of something really bad happening (which most people avoid thinking about) with the guarantee of having more money - a relatively easy choice for most. I think any developed state should put a priority on protecting its citizens, even from their own greed or ignorance. The state needs these people to be safe and healthy so that they can work, pay taxes, and create offspring to continue the cycle. In order to ensure that works, some basic services need to be provided. People that have had their house burn down won't be making more offspring any time soon due to financial risk; people that are unhealthy can't work and end up costing the state money on treatments; crime lowers the property value of an area, making it less attractive to businesses or people looking for a place to move to, and so on.
- magduf 8y ago
  >I think any developed state should put a priority on protecting its citizens, even from their own greed or ignorance. You're literally arguing against democracy here. If the citizens are greedy and ignorant and vote for policies that reflect that, then if you support democracy you must support giving them those policies. Otherwise, you're arguing for authoritarianism.

FireBeyond 8y ago

> they might be tempted to vote against funding the fire department as well. Ironically, Grant's Pass in this very region has privatized fire departments, three of them, and homeowners put a sign by their mailbox indicating which FD serves them (or none).. Actually, not three. Because, well, people saw an opportunity to get rich, and this was the result: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhD_5T4F7aw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhD_5T4F7aw * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaG6fYBKXg8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaG6fYBKXg8 You might notice some 60s and 70s era fire engines in these videos. Realize that this private Fire Department only came into existence in the mid 2000s. It has since been shut down by the State Fire Marshal.

JKCalhoun 8y ago
I'm imagining my neighbors on either side having no fire protection and while they're properties are allowed to blaze, mine is sitting there in the middle. Sure would be nice if the fire department could have stopped the fire sooner....
- magduf 8y ago
  Actually, in some places where certain residents don't pay for fire services, the fire department will come out anyway and watch their house burn, while making sure that the fire doesn't spread to their neighbors' (who did pay) houses. This happens in places like Arizona where "county islands" exist, where a few people refused to allow their property to be annexed into a municipality, so those people don't get any protection from the fire department.