Anarcho-Capitalism: A Branden ‘Blast from the Past’

[Xray]

You've been here long enough to know how to think in principles and how they are hierarchical. How's this? Freedom and individual responsibility trump "duty."

--Brant

apply

The issue is not whether principles and values are hierarchical. No one disputes this.

The isuse is how the hierarchies look like.

Here is are examples of a hierarchy of principles that differs from your own.

http://www.msnbc.msn...n/#.T5wXy8WqlLU

"The fire department's decision to let the home burn was "incredibly irresponsible," said the president of an association representing firefighters.

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schaitberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."

[Brant Gaede]

You've been here long enough to know how to think in principles and how they are hierarchical. How's this? Freedom and individual responsibility trump "duty."

--Brant

apply

The issue is not whether principles and values are hierarchical. No one disputes this.

The isuse is how the hierarchies look like.

Here is are examples of a hierarchy of principles that differs from your own.

http://www.msnbc.msn...n/#.T5wXy8WqlLU

"The fire department's decision to let the home burn was "incredibly irresponsible," said the president of an association representing firefighters.

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schaitberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."

The default context of OL is freedom and personal responsibility. That homeowner was so used to being taken care of when needs arose he forgot to take care of himself. He was seduced by the culture he lived in in which, yep, by golly!--if my house catches on fire the fire department will put it out. He also had his idiot son burning trash. The problem for him is that culture had cracks in it and he fell into one of them.

--Brant

[Dan Haggerty]

You've been here long enough to know how to think in principles and how they are hierarchical. How's this? Freedom and individual responsibility trump "duty."

--Brant

apply

The issue is not whether principles and values are hierarchical. No one disputes this.

The isuse is how the hierarchies look like.

Here is are examples of a hierarchy of principles that differs from your own.

http://www.msnbc.msn...n/#.T5wXy8WqlLU

"The fire department's decision to let the home burn was "incredibly irresponsible," said the president of an association representing firefighters.

"Professional, career firefighters shouldn’t be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up," Harold Schaitberger, International Association of Fire Fighters president, said in a statement. "They get in their trucks and go."

The default context of OL is freedom and personal responsibility. That homeowner was so used to being taken care of when needs arose he forgot to take care of himself. He was seduced by the culture he lived in in which, yep, by golly!--if my house catches on fire the fire department will put it out. He also had his idiot son burning trash. The problem for him is that culture had cracks in it and he fell into one of them.

--Brant

I'd also like to add that this assumes that firemen have a duty to simply jump and do without thought. It sounds like someone is merging the idea of a Fire and Rescue Service (classic term) with the generic idea of Public Servant (emphasis on the last word). I don't care for the direction that line of thinking goes.

[Xray]

The default context of OL is freedom and personal responsibility. That homeowner was so used to being taken care of when needs arose he forgot to take care of himself. He was seduced by the culture he lived in in which, yep, by golly!--if my house catches on fire the fire department will put it out. He also had his idiot son burning trash. The problem for him is that culture had cracks in it and he fell into one of them.

--Brant

I'd also like to add that this assumes that firemen have a duty to simply jump and do without thought. It sounds like someone is merging the idea of a Fire and Rescue Service (classic term) with the generic idea of Public Servant (emphasis on the last word). I don't care for the direction that line of thinking goes.

Firememen do have a duty. A professional duty. http://fireprep.com/..._a_firefig.html

Every fire also has the danger of harming lives, and doing everything in their power to save lives is part of their job. Just imagine someone had been trapped in that burning house and they would have stood there doing nothing and said "No pay, no spray!"

[Selene]

"No pay, no spray!"

Sounds like a slogan for Objectivist male cats...

At any rate, here is the link to the Tennessee Fire Department House thread...

Firefighters Respond ...watch house burn ...fee not paid

[Brant Gaede]

The default context of OL is freedom and personal responsibility. That homeowner was so used to being taken care of when needs arose he forgot to take care of himself. He was seduced by the culture he lived in in which, yep, by golly!--if my house catches on fire the fire department will put it out. He also had his idiot son burning trash. The problem for him is that culture had cracks in it and he fell into one of them.

--Brant

I'd also like to add that this assumes that firemen have a duty to simply jump and do without thought. It sounds like someone is merging the idea of a Fire and Rescue Service (classic term) with the generic idea of Public Servant (emphasis on the last word). I don't care for the direction that line of thinking goes.

Firememen do have a duty. A professional duty. http://fireprep.com/..._a_firefig.html

Every fire also has the danger of harming lives, and doing everything in their power to save lives is part of their job. Just imagine someone had been trapped in that burning house and they would have stood there doing nothing and said "No pay, no spray!"

We don't know, do we, that they would have done "nothing"?

--Brant

in that kind of situation, anyone trapped would probably have been dead before the firefighters got there

[Dan Haggerty]

The default context of OL is freedom and personal responsibility. That homeowner was so used to being taken care of when needs arose he forgot to take care of himself. He was seduced by the culture he lived in in which, yep, by golly!--if my house catches on fire the fire department will put it out. He also had his idiot son burning trash. The problem for him is that culture had cracks in it and he fell into one of them.

--Brant

I'd also like to add that this assumes that firemen have a duty to simply jump and do without thought. It sounds like someone is merging the idea of a Fire and Rescue Service (classic term) with the generic idea of Public Servant (emphasis on the last word). I don't care for the direction that line of thinking goes.

Firememen do have a duty. A professional duty. http://fireprep.com/..._a_firefig.html

Every fire also has the danger of harming lives, and doing everything in their power to save lives is part of their job. Just imagine someone had been trapped in that burning house and they would have stood there doing nothing and said "No pay, no spray!"

People have a duty to risk their life when the other party refuses to uphold the agreement?

Adding a person to the house and assuming the same response is a non sequitur. There was no threat to life here and if there was the ethics of how to deal with that is another situation (and would fall under the ethics of emergencies).

The reality is that someone shouldn’t be forced to be the responsible party when the other party was irresponsible twice: Once in not paying the very cheap price to have access to the fire service and the other was burning trash next to their house when they had no protection.

On the business side, I can also imagine the result of rewarding such irresponsibility. No one would pay the premium since they could just wait for the “need” and sue if the fire service didn’t perform their “duty”. Then where would the fire service be? Living on alms since they have a duty to show up anyway? The men who do this incredible job deserve better than that.

[Selene]

The default context of OL is freedom and personal responsibility. That homeowner was so used to being taken care of when needs arose he forgot to take care of himself. He was seduced by the culture he lived in in which, yep, by golly!--if my house catches on fire the fire department will put it out. He also had his idiot son burning trash. The problem for him is that culture had cracks in it and he fell into one of them.

--Brant

I'd also like to add that this assumes that firemen have a duty to simply jump and do without thought. It sounds like someone is merging the idea of a Fire and Rescue Service (classic term) with the generic idea of Public Servant (emphasis on the last word). I don't care for the direction that line of thinking goes.

Firememen do have a duty. A professional duty. http://fireprep.com/..._a_firefig.html

Every fire also has the danger of harming lives, and doing everything in their power to save lives is part of their job. Just imagine someone had been trapped in that burning house and they would have stood there doing nothing and said "No pay, no spray!"

People have a duty to risk their life when the other party refuses to uphold the agreement?

Adding a person to the house and assuming the same response is a non sequitur. There was no threat to life here and if there was the ethics of how to deal with that is another situation (and would fall under the ethics of emergencies).

The reality is that someone shouldn’t be forced to be the responsible party when the other party was irresponsible twice: Once in not paying the very cheap price to have access to the fire service and the other was burning trash next to their house when they had no protection.

On the business side, I can also imagine the result of rewarding such irresponsibility. No one would pay the premium since they could just wait for the “need” and sue if the fire service didn’t perform their “duty”. Then where would the fire service be? Living on alms since they have a duty to show up anyway? The men who do this incredible job deserve better than that.

Dan:

Absolutely correct. It would create an actuarial situation called adverse selection.

Additionally, while Angela is willing to dictate from above that an individual firefighter has a duty to risk his/her life in this situation, I am sure that we will then be able to seize all her assets, her husbands assets, her public school pension and her dog to pay the firefighter's family if he gets killed, or disabled performing his "mandatory" duty!

Adam

[9thdoctor]

Well it’s also Hitler’s birthday. So long as you’re not actually celebrating that there are still deeper depths to which you could sink.

While I'm thinking of it, today's a day you can celebrate, sort of, if it suits you. It's the anniversary of Schickelgruber's demise.

[Xray]

People have a duty to risk their life when the other party refuses to uphold the agreement?

It is about the duty firemen have. They have the duty to do what it says in their employment contract, which I assume lists in detail under which conditions they have to try saving lives.

Adding a person to the house and assuming the same response is a non sequitur. There was no threat to life here and if there was the ethics of how to deal with that is another situation (and would fall under the ethics of emergencies).

I didn't expect to get the same response; I merely radicalized the example to bring to mind that there comes a point where 'retaliating' that way could end in a tragedy.

The reality is that someone shouldn’t be forced to be the responsible party when the other party was irresponsible twice: Once in not paying the very cheap price to have access to the fire service and the other was burning trash next to their house when they had no protection.

Imo they could have dealt with that afterward, by making the homeowner pay a hefty fine.

Additionally, while Angela is willing to dictate from above that an individual firefighter has a duty to risk his/her life in this situation, I am sure that we will then be able to seize all her assets, her husbands assets, her public school pension and her dog to pay the firefighter's family if he gets killed, or disabled performing his "mandatory" duty!

Since a firefighter's duty is listed in his employment contract (which I have not dictated), there would exist no liability on my part.

[Selene]

Additionally, while Angela is willing to dictate from above that an individual firefighter has a duty to risk his/her life in this situation, I am sure that we will then be able to seize all her assets, her husbands assets, her public school pension and her dog to pay the firefighter's family if he gets killed, or disabled performing his "mandatory" duty!

Since a firefighter's duty is listed in his employment contract (which I have not dictated), there would exist no liability on my part.

Ah, be careful where you tread here Angela...

It is about the duty firemen have. They have the duty to do what it says in their employment contract,

which I assume lists

in detail under which conditions they have to try saving lives.

You "assume," surely, you are not referring to that link you put up from the website?

If You're a Tennessee Fire Department, Is It Still Extortion?

By Rod Brouhard, About.com GuideOctober 6, 2010

In my day job, I'm a paramedic. In ambulances all around the country are people just like me. Some work for government agencies, some for nonprofit organizations and many work for private corporations that respond to 911 calls under contract with cities or counties.

If you call 911 for an ambulance, you'll get one. Indeed, it's federal law that you must be treated without regard to whether you can pay the bill or not.

Apparently, it's not that way for all types of emergency services.

Firefighters in South Fulton, Tennessee refused to respond when Gene Cranick's house was burning down. Cranick reportedly did not pay the $75 annual fire protection fee required of homeowners living outside South Fulton city limits.

In the past, fire protection wasn't always a government duty. Insurance companies funded the business by selling fire protection to homeowners. If you had the insurance company's medallion on your house, the fire company would put out the flames. If not, your house would burn.

Imagine the outrage if big, corporate insurance agnencies did the same thing today. Apparently, it's not only still legal to do that in Tennessee, it's the municipal governments running the racket. Residents call it "Pay to Spray."

According to a report in the Union City Messenger, the Pay to Spray system is for rural homeowners living outside city borders. The cities provide fire protection for taxpaying residents inside city limits, but rural folks only get protected if they opt to pay a fee, which in South Fulton is 75 bucks.

It's reported that Cranick or his neighbor offered to pay whatever it took to get the fire department to respond, but they were told it was too late. According to the Messenger story, South Fulton's mayor compared the rural fee to an insurance premium and held that if the fire department responded to houses that didn't pay the fee, there would be no incentive to pay it.

So, I guess there's nothing like burning a house or two to the ground to make sure everybody else pays for protection. In the big city, they call that extortion.

I wonder how much more outrage there would be if someone had been inside Cranick's house. Most of my patients don't have insurance. Some of my patients are arguably abusing the fact that we won't turn them down. I've even had one patient stop complaining of chest pain once the ambulance doors were closed, announcing to my partner that she just wanted morphine. Despite admitting she was just searching for a drug fix, the patient was still treated.

I've been in emergency services -- as a firefighter and a paramedic -- for 23 years. When I was just a young probationary, I learned about insurance medallions. At the time, I thought the concept was barbaric.

My opinion hasn't changed. http://firstaid.about.com/b/2010/10/06/if-youre-a-tennessee-fire-department-is-it-still-extortion.htm

====================

And it happened again: Posted on December 7, 2011 - sorry Pearl Harbor!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/it-happened-again-firefighters-let-home-burn-after-owners-didnt-pay-75-protection-fee/

[Dan Haggerty]

Well it’s also Hitler’s birthday. So long as you’re not actually celebrating that there are still deeper depths to which you could sink.

While I'm thinking of it, today's a day you can celebrate, sort of, if it suits you. It's the anniversary of Schickelgruber's demise.

As the kids say these days - WTF? I'm missing something relavent here.

[9thdoctor]

As the kids say these days - WTF? I'm missing something relavent here.

Schickelgruber = Hitler

His father changed his name from Schickelgruber to Hitler well before Adolf was born, but I gather if you wanted to tick him off you could bring it up. I forget where, it might have been in Shirer's book, that someone said that but for name change, the whole mess may never have happened. Just imagine thousands of Germans chanting 'Heil Schickelgruber', who could do that with a straight face!

[BaalChatzaf]

What the hell...

http://wn.com/Horst-Wessel-Lied_Nazi_Germany_Parody,_ThDubya

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

I have said time and again that neither a Randian government nor an anarchistic society will hever happen in the U.S., at least not while anyone reading this post is alive and able to have me repeat myself for the umpteenth time. We discuss these models as ideals, as Rand discussed Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Such discussions have philosophical value, but those who have no interest in philosophy should avoid them.

I would choose the opposite path: I'd encourage others to scrutinize the philosophical ideas (and ideals) presented in the discussions and not to hesitate in pointing out possible flaws.

IMo if one considers discussions which have "philosophical value" as not that connected to reality, one will give too much fodder to those who dismiss philosophy as an 'Ivory Tower' thing.

I have also said that if we could ever achieve an ideal Randian government, then the road to competing agencies would be relatively easy, since the Randian government could not compel anyone to support it financially. The road to each, if it exists, is essentially the same.

It is true that a 'Voltax' system would run into difficulties, but from what Rand wrote (in TVOS, p. 132). on the topic - (she called it "competing governments", but the gist of her critique is leveled at the 'competitive' aspect of several law enforcement agencies) - one can infer that she was convinced such agencies could not work.

My feeling is that, if faced with a decision, she would rather have changed the Voltax system toward some mandatory taxation than arguing for the establishment of competing agencies

[Peter]

George H. Smith, on 21 April 2012 - 08:34 PM, said:

I have also said that if we could ever achieve an ideal Randian government, then the road to competing agencies would be relatively easy, since the Randian government could not compel anyone to support it financially. The road to each, if it exists, is essentially the same.

Xray replied:

It is true that a 'Voltax' system would run into difficulties, but from what Rand wrote (in TVOS, p. 132). on the topic - (she called it "competing governments", but the gist of her critique is leveled at the 'competitive' aspect of several law enforcement agencies) - one can infer that she was convinced such agencies could not work. My feeling is that, if faced with a decision, she would rather have changed the Voltax system toward some mandatory taxation than arguing for the establishment of competing agencies.

end quote

Not necessarily, because implied in George’s statement is that a Randian Government, by definition, must be utilizing a “better” U.S. Constitution. Rand would have insisted that competing agencies abide by the Constitution, and in George’s remark he agrees because he says, “The road to each, if it exists, is essentially the same.” What a bombshell is in George’s few words.

So did Objectivism evolve to Rational Anarchism or did Rational Anarchism reintegrate with Objectivism? As I have been stressing for a while, George’s Rational Anarchism is sounding more and more like Objectivism. The hitch would be that IF the parties involved still do not agree after competing, private arbitration, the *final arbiter* in disputes would still be the Supreme Court, under a Randian system. The Federal Government and The various States would continue to have the same duties as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution but other agencies could co-exist and compete for clients, as occurs today with private security agencies which compete with the State and municipal police.

The flaws of anarchism’s “loss of philosophy,” “anything goes,” “constant consent” and its potential loss of liberty are solved with a continuing Federal overseeing of operations under a Constitution that protects individual liberties. With an intact but voluntarily taxed government, laws can still exist that universally protect individual rights, the rights of children, clean air and water rights, rights to propriety (as in no public nudity), etc.

I wonder if George H. Smith KNOWS he agrees? If not now, soon. Welcome home Brother!

Peter Taylor

[Xray]

As I have been stressing for a while, George’s Rational Anarchism is sounding more and more like Objectivism.

I don't have this impression.

Ghs argues that "minarchism is inconsistent with Rand's fundamental moral principles" http://www.objectivi...50, and that this led him and others to embrace anarchism.

But even if these inconsistencies should exist, Ayn Rand was a declared anti-anarchist, and clear as bell about government being indispensable:

"Such, in essence, is the proper purpose of a government: to make social existence possible to men, by protecting the benefits and combating the evils which men can cause to another". (Rand, TVOS, p. 130)

[Selene]

As I have been stressing for a while, George’s Rational Anarchism is sounding more and more like Objectivism.

I don't have this impression.

Ghs argues that "minarchism is inconsistent with Rand's fundamental moral principles" http://www.objectivi...50, and that this led him and others to embrace anarchism.

But even if Ghs is correct in his assessment and these inconsistencies exist, Ayn Rand still was a minarchist, and clear as bell about government being indispensable:

"Such, in essence, is the proper purpose of a government: to make social existence possible to men, by protecting the benefits and combating the evils which men can cause to another". (Rand, TVOS, p. 130)

Angela:

A problem generates for all government structures in that they have to be run and inhabited by men who are corruptible. Now this is not a deal breaker, however it is an incurable fault which is uncorrectable.

Adam.

[Mikee]

If the fourth estate were doing its job it would be correctable. If the constitution were amended to put some real teeth into consequences of prevarication by govt officials (thereby disenfranchising everyone who voted for them) the fourth estate would have a mandate to do their job.

[Selene]

If the fourth estate were doing its job it would be correctable. If the constitution were amended to put some real teeth into consequences of prevarication by govt officials (thereby disenfranchising everyone who voted for them) the fourth estate would have a mandate to do their job.

My recommendation is a minimum mandatory sentence of twenty [20] years for any government official, appointed, or elected. That minimum sentence would apply if the official gave up everyone else they were involved with, otherwise the sentence would be either thirty (30) or forty (40) years.

I would frankly consider the death penalty, but I am morally opposed to it except in two (2) types of cases.

[Brant Gaede]

The horses are running wild.

--Brant

[Mikee]

Seriously. In court witnesses are required to swear to tell the truth under penalty of being convicted of perjury. Similarly an elected official should be required to tell the truth to his constituency at the beginning of his campaign. A conviction for perjury during his campaign or in office ends his political career forever and any benefits he may have accrued. Journalists would have a reason to get up in the morning to ferret out these lies. The judicial branch would take care of the trials. The cynicism of the American people would subside after a few of these lying bastards are tossed out on their asses. Why does this seem like a fairy tale to people whenever I suggest it?

[Brant Gaede]

Seriously. In court witnesses are required to swear to tell the truth under penalty of being convicted of perjury. Similarly an elected official should be required to tell the truth to his constituency at the beginning of his campaign. A conviction for perjury during his campaign or in office ends his political career forever and any benefits he may have accrued. Journalists would have a reason to get up in the morning to ferret out these lies. The judicial branch would take care of the trials. The cynicism of the American people would subside after a few of these lying bastards are tossed out on their asses. Why does this seem like a fairy tale to people whenever I suggest it?

I'm all for lying politicians. It's part of their charm. It's a requirement for the jobs they aspire to. If we can't trust them to lie we can't trust their humanity. We'll all become disoriented. I do see the point in running for office and deliberately losing to a scumbag. Then we can then all go down to the public square for the hanging. That'd be way cool.

--Brant

[Mikee]

You're about as helpful as a dog in a cat fight.

[caroljane]

In fact dogs can be very helpful in a cat fight.

One Who Knows