I think that many DUers genuinely don't understand what it's like to live in a libertarian wasteland

[Xithras]

Why are some of us unsympathetic to these types? Because we live with them every day. We see them flaunt their destructive ways, we watch as they protest and scream for the shutdown of our "socialist" school systems, the revocation of environmental laws, and the unraveling of the social contracts upon which our society is built. These people are anti-tax, anti-government, and anti-society. If they had their way, ALL fire departments would adopt a "fee for use" system. So yes, I unapologetically admit to a bit of schadenfreude when one of them sees their house burn to the ground, as their libertarian fantasies rear up and bite them in the ass.

I've seen it, I've lived it, and I'm all out of sympathy.

I live just outside of the smallish unincorporated city of Salida California, a dirty little burg of about 18,000 people just north of Modesto California. It's the heart of California's conservative wonderland, the California Central Valley. This is an area where even the Democrats run to the right of each other in an attempt to pick up votes.

Salida, a city of 18,000 people, has no municipal fire department. It's fire services are provided by the surrounding county. It has no city government. It's government services are provided by the surrounding county. It has no police department. It is patrolled by a single sheriff's deputy, provided by the county. The town also has no high schools, and foists its kids off on nearby Modesto to finish their educations (to their credit, Modesto just opened a brand new $100 million dollar high school in Salida, to provide the educational opportunities that its residents won't). Why doesn't a city of 18,000 people provide these fundamental services on their own? To answer that, I'm going to provide a simple example.

Salida has street lights. To run those street lights, the people of Salida formed the Salida Lighting District many decades ago. While they were happy to form the district, they refused to pay for it. The town, which only had about 1500 people at the time, didn't have the resources to fund it, so the county stepped in and covered that too.

In 2001 the Salida Lighting District ran into a serious problem. Escalating electrical costs, combined with aging and deteriorating equipment in many areas, were driving operational costs through the roof. Rapid growth had also caused the town to explode and transform from a tiny farm town into a full blown city. It's appeal? "No city taxes here!" was an actual selling point used on some neighborhoods when they were going up!

Unfortunately for Salida, the economy was also in the tank in 2001, and the county was broke. So it came up with a plan. A simple assessment to fund the district and keep the street lights on. The assessment, in total, would have added about ONE DOLLAR a month to the average persons property taxes. $15 a year, per home, is all they needed to keep the lights on. The residents were OUTRAGED. They held protests along the main street, blanketed the community with flyers and campaign posters slamming the proposal, and saturated the local airwaves with their talking points about how the government was "oppressing" them through taxation, which they see as a form of slavery ("They can take your land and property if you don't pay! You are not free if you have to PAY the government for the right to be left alone! Taxes = Socialism!").

Would you like to guess how the people of Salida finally voted? You guessed it. Those streets were DARK. And you should have HEARD the residents whine when their crime rates shot up, when their cars started vanishing from their driveways, and when vandalism went through the roof. Of course, they couldn't blame themselves for the new crime. Nooo...they blamed the "lazy" sheriffs department for not patrolling more, and "soft on crime liberals" for not locking away criminals for longer terms. No matter how bad things got, it was ALWAYS the "liberals" fault.

Today the lights are back on, funded by the county. I pay to power the lights to protect their homes, even though they have consistently refused to do so.

So, yes, I'm not particularly sympathetic when I hear about someone getting bit by their own greed. Does that make me a bad liberal? Maybe, but it also makes me human.

Supporting these libertarian freeloaders, in my book, is like enabling a junkie. You may make their lives easier and more pleasant, but your enabling behavior is simply feeding their addiction. Like all addicts, they need to hit bottom and admit that their lifestyle has to change before they're going to be willing to do so. While our natural liberal inclination is to step in and help them, I genuinely believe that we're just making the problem worse when we do so. Libertarians and tea baggers are junkies, addicted to an idea and supporting a social model that is fundamentally unsustainable in a modern society. Yes, it's tragic that this guy lost his house because he wouldn't pay for fire protection, or that the people of Salida lost their cars and had their houses vandalized because they wouldn't pay for street lights, but we solve NOTHING by swooping in like superheroes to save the day. To them, we're still the enemy, and their addiction continues unabated.

[seabeyond]

1. right on. and i was thinking that again, a number of times... people dont have to listen to this

shit continually... knowing what they want to do to the nation in their stupidity. they really think it will work and will just destroy. arguing it with them over and over and over is like arguing with du that i am not libertarian because i support the democratic tax funded city to protect all.... keeping our safety net.

[SharonAnn]

115. Yes, I have come to the same conclusions. We have the same kind of issues here

where I live and we just have to let them face the consequences of their decisions.

People here are absolutely "anti-tax" but they are adamant that they want more and better services. They absolutely don't get the connection between paying taxes and getting services.

[roguevalley]

132. I have a different opinion about letting them face the consequences.

I was teaching as a kid and the idiots decided to have a vote to op out of social security. I fought it like a lion and we lost. Now, at my old age, I have no social security. Its not that simple, "letting them face the consequences" because they drag a bunch of us with them, people who aren't guilty.

[seabeyond]

136. well... i really wasnt into teaching a lesson, nor backing letting the house burn, BUT

since it happened i do think it is an eye opener to where the nation is going with these choices. and because it is an eye opener i think it is important to speak out, speak loud and let it be known that this cannot become a part of who we are. i really see it connected with the destruction on our schools, libraries and SS.

the unfortunate part of that is because i understand why things happened, and am outraged at the county that sat all this up for other cities to have to deal with it equals to being a teabagger amongst duers.

and because i do hold the homeowner absolutely responsible for most of what happens.... i think he "deserves" what he got, which i have never believed in with about anything. or am uncompassionate, heartless, which is bullshit. i dont feel for him, but i do feel for all the people he put in danger and hurt with his selfish choices, including animals.

what i dont want is to allow this county to continue on like this so they "learn a lesson" because all they are doing is getting free service and hurting others.

[zanana1]

180. I hadn't considered that and glad you brought it up.

While I agree with the OP's message, I also understand yours. It's like innocent people getting shot in the crossfire. Because some people are bullies and refuse to pay, other people suffer.

I'm glad you gave me something to think about, rogue.

[Pithlet]

193. Fight their fires for them anyway even though they don't pay

and the city residents who do pay their taxes face consequences. Their fire company gets stretched too thin or they may even lose it outright. The city has to give consideration to its own reisdents. That's why they had to finally say enough. We only come when you pay.

[krkaufman]

145. The problem is that ....

... their "approach" only appears to work because it is happening within the larger context of a liberal system that hasn't yet been fully defunded. They're all still drawing SSI, unemployment, benefiting from public education, public roadways, food & product safety standards, etc, but would likely start yelling loudly, as exemplified in the OP, when faced with the world free of these services.

[Enthusiast]

150. Good point, krkaufman.

They simply aren't thinking much beyond the libertarian talking points.

[stray cat]

2. Should unions fight for those who choose not to join the union or pay dues?

I think at least to some extent yes - for the same reason

[Better Today]

7. No, and what "same reason" are you talking about?

[Xithras]

10. The analogy doesn't quite work.

A better one would be: "Should unions fight to defend people who are actively working toward their destruction?"

Teabaggers and libertarians aren't simply "opting out". These people are politically committed to the idea of ending these services for THE REST OF US, whether we want them or not.

I've lived in areas with crappy fire protection, and don't ever want to do that again. I'm perfectly happy paying whatever taxes are required to protect my home from fire. The libertarian types don't merely disagree, they want to DEPRIVE ME of that choice. They are politically active, and work toward the goal of ending "socialist" services for EVERYONE>

Should a union offer services to those who aren't members? That's debatable. Should a union offer services to those who are trying to destroy it? Absolutely not.

[Hannah Bell]

155. good distinction.

[madrchsod]

21. my wifes union does because...

if there is an issue with a sub/scab then that issue may impact a union worker. they do`t like it but they have to.

[chemp]

22. They do where i work

I work for a university. "Outside" hires are in the Union after 30 days. Student hires are not eligible for union membership
The union still offers full protection to the student; health coverage, vacation days, sick days, personal days and representation during constructive counseling.
As a non-union manager, I find this to be a great service provided. I don't know if all unions do this, by ours does.

[tavalon]

29. Ours does

But, I worry that the fact that less than half of our nurses choose to pay dues (join, in other words) makes our union weak. I pay the dues and I chafe at the weakness of our union. I tried to be more active, but saw so much learned helplessness and was so adamant that it needed to change that I became a pariah to the union powers that be. It's the same sort of learned helplessness I see in so many Democrats and rail against.

I think I would rather our union be a closed shop, requiring dues from all members. Then, I think most of our entrenched union leaders need to be ousted. If only I were queen (LOL).

[hedgehog]

32. I think unions spent years fighting for those who didn't join

or pay dues. Eventually some places became closed shops; union membership was automatic and dues were automatically deducted. The sad thing is that people tended to remember the dues and forget all the union benefits!

[lapislzi]

63. Guess what? They do.

Just last week the NY/NJ IBL (longshoremen) staged a sympathy strike in solidarity with their non-union brothers in Phildelphia, who were being gouged by Del Monte Foods.

Thanks to the tireless work of organized labor, we all get to enjoy weekends and paid holidays, and 7-year-olds no longer have to go down coal mines.

[pasto76]

65. YES - fight for the opportunity for others to organize

by establishing fair and universal rules for all employees. Unions ultimate dream? for conditions to be good enough not to require a union.

[txaslftist]

66. Unions? You have to be kidding.

Our manufacturing base has been destroyed, and what's left is at about 1941 levels. The workers there are only about 5% unionized across the nations.

Unions are irrelevant. they need to be fighting for their own survival.

[liberation]

68. Besides the obvious lazy attempt at a false dichotomy...

... you really don't know much about unions, do you?

Most of the unions I have been part of, actually do that.

[bobbolink]

181. Your uglyness towards another HUMAN BEING makes me want to run right out and join a union.

Errrrr, no, it doesn't. :puke:

[Citizen Worker]

86. Unions do fight for the non-Union workers by raising the standards for Union members non-Union

workers benefit from higher wages and other benefits. That's how employer payed pensions and healthcare came into existence? It happened when Labor represented 35% of the workforce and the employers soon understood if they wanted to hang on to the workforce they had to offer higher wages and benefits. With the decline of Union density we see this working in reverse. Defined benefit pension plans have been replaced by 401K savings plans with little or nothing contributed by the employer and over the last 30 years more of the healthcare costs have been shifted to the individual. It is the same with minimum wage laws. When minimum wages are increased everyone benefits through higher wages. But we all know that the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation. Solution: rebuild a vigorous, active Labor movement and we'll all be better off.

[Ozymanithrax]

182. Yes, because if the unions do not fight to keep wages high and healthcare..

at adequate levels for everyone, they create a low wage under class that will undercut labor. It is not in the interest of labor to create a large cheap labor pool.

[Vincardog]

3. I couldn't have said it better myself

[Fumesucker]

4. +1..

[Warpy]

5. Sometimes compassion is best served by letting them learn hard lessons

because it's the only way they're ever going to learn anything.

Not until their houses burn down or the house next door does and damages their property will they wake up and realize that maybe this man the intrepid individualist stuff aint all it's cracked up to be.

In the meantime, the rest of us need to be protected from their rock headed stupidity, and taxes are the best way to do that.

Modesto would be wise if it started to charge realistic fees to Salida. A farming community might have been worth a little welfare. A city made up of bedroom communities is not.

[BrklynLiberal]

14. It is called "tough love"....LOL

[rhett o rick]

91. Is "tough love" a Christian concept? nm

[Enthusiast]

151. More Old Testament, I think. nt

[seabeyond]

154. i dont think so. it came around when drug addictions really had escalated

more about drawing boundaries... christians have picked it up along with other and could put their spin on it, but seems to me was a way to handle kid that were addicts ect...

[rhett o rick]

202. It is often used for a lack of empathy. nm

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. I came on board in 2002 fighting against Libertarians who were trying to sneak into the newsgroup.

Whatever happened to CharacterAssassination?

The name said it all. Nice chappie was proud of himself because he purchased property next to a Park preserve. Wouldn't be surprised if it's all adversely possessed by now.

[City Lights]

8. Well said!

:thumbsup:

[petronius]

59. Perfect username for this thread!

:)

And I agree - the OP is right on target...

[stopbush]

9. Do we know that the guy whose house burned down in TN was a libertarian?

I'm asking.

[Xithras]

11. We know....

...that he lived in an area that shot down a funding proposal by a 19-1 margin, and that his history is consistent with those types of beliefs. The odds sort of speak for themselves.

[stopbush]

15. But we don't know that he was a libertarian, do we?

I live in CA where Prop 8 was passed. If "the odds speak for themselves," then I must have voted for Prop 8, correct?

[Fumesucker]

17. Prop 8 was shot down 19-1 and you have a history of bigoted statements?

If those things are true then the situations are equivalent..

[stopbush]

25. Assumptions are being made here about this homeowner.

I'm part of the reality-based community, and I see no harm in refraining from talking through one's hat on the guy's political leanings, or how he voted on the $75 fee if one isn't certain of the facts.

Is that too much to ask?

[Bluenorthwest]

107. The vote in question was not a 19 to one 'margin'

It was 19 to 1 with 1 abstaining. A governmental vote, not a vote by the people. Not a 'margin' or 'ratio' as keeps being repeated.

[JVS]

64. We know he was a deadbeat who thought they'd put out the fire anyway.

[rhett o rick]

90. LOL. So you dont know. nm

[theHandpuppet]

102. But of course he doesn't mind sucking up govt farm subsidies

Which is also typical.

[Fumesucker]

13. He had a fire extinguished by the FD three years ago and never paid a cent..

And then furthermore neglected to purchase fire protection at least this year..

Not definitive but certainly evidentiary.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. For those inthe surrounding counties to help these folks is like enabling an addict...EXACTLY!!.

If they do not want to fund any form of govt, police officers, firemen, street lights, etc...they should have to live without them...
Let them survive on their own without any of the amenities that they are being GIVEN, in spite of their refusal to fund them. SOMEONE is funding them!!!

It is one thing to give aid those who CANNOT help themselves, but it is a totally different story if folks WANT things from others that they can afford to supply themselves, but simply refuse to do it. They are thieves, relying on the stupidity and generosity of others. It is one big fat scam!!!

Why should anyone in the surrounding areas have to subsidize these assholes. I would be damned if I would let one penny of my tax money support those freeloaders...as you so aptly call them.
I would call that righteous indignation.

[raccoon]

62. +1000. nt

[Brewman_Jax]

16. Libertarian "philosophy" is like a BB gun...

it's all fun until someone loses an eye--or a house.

The fire in TN is a graphic example of why libertarianism doesn't work. It's all a fairy tale.

I find it ironic that they hate liberals, but have no problem taking our money.

[susanwy]

104. ROFL

"Careful, you'll shoot your eye out with that thing!"

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OYNfxvtRBug/SzNem0-IayI/AAAAAAAABsg/YW1A0JDzxio/s400/A+Christmas+Story.jpg

:spray:

[BrklynLiberal]

198. Well said. VERY well said.

[KittyWampus]

18. I appreciate your post. Many DU'ers can't seem to grasp realities other than their own

[TwilightGardener]

19. I do. But I still want all fires put out.

[Johonny]

20. pretty much

It's teaching them a lesson until the fire spreads and burns your house down too.

[shireen]

110. +1

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. One of the best posts of the YEAR

Great job!!!!

[theHandpuppet]

103. I'll second that.

:thumbsup:

[Hissyspit]

142. Try this one instead:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x512070

[Hissyspit]

131. Not hardly. nt

[Lilith Velkor]

24. "They have to hit bottom" often means "innocents have to die."

Sorry, but I am not OK with that.

[hedgehog]

33. If people had been threatened, there would have been a response

"The incident is shining new light on a policy that's got a lot of people upset. But Union City Fire Chief Kelly Edmison is defending the firefighters in South Fulton.

"If somebody is trapped in the house we're going to go because life safety is number one but we can't give the service away," Edmison said. "It's not South Fulton's problem. It's not Union City's problem. It's the county's problem. There is no county fire department.

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/More-fallout-following-house-fire-104113489.html

[TwilightGardener]

37. A neighbor calls the FD, says smoke and flames are coming out of

a non-subscriber's house across the road. No one outside, no contact with homeowners. How does anyone know who's inside unless they respond?

[hedgehog]

44. It's a hypothetical question that doesn't describe what happened here.

[TwilightGardener]

48. But it could, in the next non-response. Which is why they should

respond if able, bill later.

[PVnRT]

57. Then, in the absence of information to the contrary,

it is likely that FD would have gone in to see if anyone was there and rescue them if needed.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xithras]

28. I haven't seen a single libertarian in any of these threads.

Not one person on DU has advocated for a pay-per-use, privatized, or fee based system. The only arguments I've seen have revolved around how WE should respond to those who DO advocate...and get...those systems, and are then harmed by them. There's a HUGE difference between pointing out that they got exactly the system they asked for, and actually advocating for that system yourself.

[prolesunited]

30. That point seems to be lost

I would love to see a sustainable world created by such posters.

[TwilightGardener]

31. So, no libertarians, I agree. Just people who like to watch libertarians'

(or those merely SUSPECTED of libertarianism, by virtue of where they live) houses burn down--elderly and kids who might be homeless, family heirlooms and photos gone--it's sweet, sweet justice, isn't it?

[Xithras]

38. I didn't start this thread to rehash that point.

It's been beaten to death in a dozen others.

The purpose of this thread was to explain WHY so many of us feel the way we do.

Imagine for a moment that you were a kid who was beaten up by a bully every day on the way to school. He would punch you, knock you down, take your money, and run away lauging down the middle of the road. Every single day. Day. After day. After day. After day. Week. After week. After week.

One day your bully beats you up, grabs your wallet, and runs into the street laughing again. You look up and see that he doesn't notice that he's running into the path of a car and is about to get hit.

Do you shout a warning?

Many, and probably most, liberals would say yes...but I think it's entirely understandable why many wouldn't. While you might not agree with them, you should at least be able to sympathize with the fact that some people would just shut their mouths and look away. Not because they're evil, but because they're tired of it..

[TwilightGardener]

46. Personal animosity towards an acquaintance vs. some man in a state you probably don't live in

whom you personally don't know--but he sure sounds like a doofus libertarian or a freeloader on the teevee? Not really a good comparison. What's more, I have lived most of my adult life in extreme red, rural areas of the midwest and west. My neighbors were and are mostly Republican. They helped me tremendously when I needed help, several times over--pulled me out of a ditch, drove me home when I needed a ride, watched my kids, fixed a broken water valve so my basement wouldn't flood, called me because they noticed my car lights left on. I can't judge people by politics or appearances in a time of need, and I am glad they didn't judge me by my Obama sticker on my car.

[LiberalAndProud]

146. I do not take any joy in Mr. Cranick's misfortune. This is sad; miserable.

I am not gleeful that his home burned down. But this is an inevitable consequence of an unsupportable public policy. It is foreseeable. This is the kind of world that the Teabagge(R)s advocate for. Immoral, unavoidable consequences result when Teab(R)agging types succeed. Yes, we should view this catastrophe with alarm. Yes we should decry the immorality inherent in the situation.

Do I know that Mr. Cranick is a Teabagger? It doesn't matter. Everybody under the jurisdiction of the county commission "benefits" from that body's "wisdom".

It isn't the fire department or the city commission or the mayor that should feel the heat of our wrath. The county commissioners should bear the guilt and be shamed here. Much of DU's anger has been misplaced, IMHO.

[eilen]

161. We don't know what the guy's politics are but what we do know

is that three adult men live in that house and not one of them saw fit to pay for the fire dept. protection even after a fire was put out there 3 years ago and they are aware and actively burn trash in their back yard. They didn't pay their bill three years ago and they chose not to pay the $75 annual subscription fee. I bet they pay for satellite tv though.

[LiberalAndProud]

178. I know that it is likely that Mr. Cranick and clan are sympathetic with the Teabagger cause.

My point is that it doesn't matter where his political sympathies lie. Everyone (conservative and liberal alike) is harmed by the voluntary fee model. As soon as the county institutes a mandatory fee, houses won't burn down because of oversight, omission or greed.

[TwilightGardener]

179. You hear the story after the fact and judge that the man was not worthy

of having his fire put out, because he didn't pay and he's stupid. Or cheap. Or a dumb hick who burns trash. I've said before and I'll say it again--who this man is and what he paid or didn't pay means nothing to me. Public safety and humanity come first. The responders were able to put the fire out, they chose to stand by instead. Anyone who still defends this is sick.

[seabeyond]

40. no twilight. people that like to address the issues that will cause damage to not only our cause

and our nation, but the individual people you care so much about.

[txaslftist]

67. LOL.

"libertarians" is just a label, like "conservative"...

This is DU, where the secret hope is that they all will get their just desserts somehow.

It's like a reverse rapture cult, where the libertarians and conservatives will be sucked up into the sky in some appropriately brimstonian way, and will perish miserable and painful deaths, all the while regretting that they just "didn't care enough..."

Meanwhile the liberal faithful will (maybe not sincerely) mourn their passing with the phrases, "if only they had found the true path..."

What a joke. Our nation is being bankrupted by greedy corporations and a rapacious military spending machine, our politicians of both parties have sold us out, and people still give a crap what their neighbor's (who is floundering just as badly as they are) politics are.

We've been divided and conquered, and this post is just another example of how inculcated we've been in the two-party idealogical fraud.

[TonyMontana]

34. Then you're not reading them

There are several DUers who have supported the libertarian ideal here. In fact, simply agreeing with the decision to let the house burn down is an implicit support of it.

[seabeyond]

41. yes. you. supporting the county that enforces libertarian policies. but i understand it is

cause you lack the understanding that is exactly what you are doing, so i am more gracious than to call you out.

[TonyMontana]

60. You make no sense whatsoever

[jeff47]

Um...no

Like virtually everything in the world, the "why" is important.

If you agree with the decision to let the house burn because we should all be Galtian supermen 100% responsible for our own safety and well-being, then you're a libertarian.

If you agree with the decision to let the house burn because the Galtian supermen running the County should practice what they preach, and thus demonstrate the evils of their philosophy, then you're not a libertarian.

I've yet to see a post that agreed with #1. I've seen lots that agree with #2.

[Nay]

170. Thank you, Jeff. I've been appalled at the lack of critical thinking

about this whole matter. Most ppl who were called libertarian were only espousing your #2, which only required that county to practice what it preached and reap the consequences.

And yes, as a poster above said, I bet these guys managed to pay for their satellite service.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tavalon]

27. I think we've all gotten a crash course in these last few days

and I, for one, am flabbergasted.

[uncommon]

35. Excellent.

Thank you.

K&R.

[TreasonousBastard]

36. These phony libertarians talk about how to be self-reliant, but...

then they rely on the rest of us to bail them out when their bullshit catches up with them.

And never bother to admit it, much less thank us.

Here on DU some of the same people bitching and moaning about "the rich" living off of our taxes have no problem with a bunch of cheap bastards sponging fire protection off of a city that pays its bills.

Sponging is sponging, and if you get caught, so be it. It may be unfortunate that the rich are caught less then the rest, but the principle is the same.

[hedgehog]

47. Speaking of self reliance - the fire spread from two trash barrels

to a shed and two hours later set the house on fire?

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

A couple years back I was out with a hoe and shovel helping a neighbor put out a grass fire before it got out of hand. I can't imagine this fire spreading like this, fire department or no.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. But you do not know this individuals politics

Shall I judge you by Salida, are the votes of the majority your votes? Was Prop 8 your personal doing? Apparently you personally elected Arnold, twice, because these things were done by the majority you live with, by your own damn choice.
To judge this person without knowledge of the person is like unto prejudice. To assume that he himself supports these views is exactly like if I judge you according to the city and State in which you live. Your county really went for the hate with 8 you know.
All those assumptions are assumptions. Either that, or please explain why you drafted, promoted and passed Prop H8. Which is it?

[ellie]

43. Thank you.

[Hissyspit]

45. And the innocent animals? Were they libertarian?

I haven't seen the details on the supposed animal deaths verified, but how is what happened to them their fault?

Swooping in like superheroes to save the day is not why you do it. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, and I may have it wrong, the firefighters went to save a house that HAD paid the fee. If they'd put out the other fire, it never would have been threatened in the first place.

[hedgehog]

49. Again - here's a link to the best description I've seen

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

Clearly, this family had plenty of time to clear animals and precious items out of the house.

[Hissyspit]

50. And that changes my point how exactly?

[hedgehog]

53. The family called the fire department well before the fire had

spread to the house. They had over an hour to get their animals and anything irreplaceable out. I'd say the responsibility for the death of the animals lies with the family, not with the fire department.

[Hissyspit]

74. I. Know. That.

And that changes my point HOW exactly.

All of you have missed the point. The innocent animals are dead. They don't give a fuck about ideology. They don't give a fuck about paid or unpaid fees.
Everybody/anybody could have rescued them.

[seabeyond]

83. IF they are dead, they are dead because the owner did not walk into his house and take them outside.

i dont get how.... because the owner left the dogs in his house, makes him totally free of responsibility.

is the thinking that regardless of his derelict duty on all front, and the simple action of bringing dogs out side.... regardless of ALL that, because fd did not put out the fire, they are responsible because the dogs died in the fire?

that logic makes no. sense. to. me. took about the umpteenth time and a couple posters to get this into my head, but is so twisted for my mind to wrap around...

but ya, ok, regardless of a POS person for not getting his dogs out and they ultimately succumb to flame, then yes... the fire killed them.

wow.

[Hissyspit]

133. Sigh.

The guy didn't get his dogs out?

He's responsible.

The firefighters could have put the fire out and conceivably rescued the dogs?

They're responsible, too.

VERY SIMPLE: The dogs and possible cat DON'T CARE who was responsible. THEY JUST WANTED TO BE RESCUED.

It's not about responsibility. It's about the end result.

Again, I don't know the verified details. There may have been no animals. The firefighters may have not been told about the animals. It's not clear to me. But what does political ideology and responsibility (OP) have to do with saving the animals??

[seabeyond]

137. i think there probably werent animals, personally. it was hard for me to see what you

and others were saying with this. literally hard to see, or comprehende because it was truly beyond the way i think or feel. i get what you are saying, now.

i dont in anyway agree, lol, but i get it.

it is clear to me the man had the time, and IF there were animals, he didnt get them out. i dont get why a person would not save the animals.

but now i can let it go with the people that dont have the black and white like i do, and at least understand what you are saying

thanks.

[Hissyspit]

141. The OP seems to be saying by extension that because the house owner was a libertarian fuckwad

that the firefighters were off the hook for saving the animals (if, indeed, they knew about them or the possibility of them) when they arrived because the owner was a libertarian fuckwad. They weren't. Period.

I don't imagine that as their brains fried and their skin melted (if this indeed happened) that the dogs were thinking 'oh, well, if I have to not be rescued to show this libertarian freeloader fuckwad what a libertarian freeloader fuckwad he is, and what a jerk he is for not getting me out two hours earlier, then I understand.'

163 recs for this immoral illogic.

I consider bvar22's post on this issue the last word:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9259657&mesg_id=9260251

Both my wife & I are active members of our Rural Volunteer Fire Department.

The thought of watching someone's home burn is abhorrent.
My wife is the Director of our Department, and I am a Pumper/Tanker Driver/Operator Entry Team Member
If someone ordered me to NOT put out a burning home, I would disobey those orders without hesitation.
I would physically oppose ANYONE who tried to stop me from putting out a burning home.
Everyone on our department feels the same way.


Fuel to add to the Fire:
While we are primarily funded through DUES from homeowners in our area (about 75% compliance)
our Volunteer Department DOES receive some Federal Funding through several grants, and some funding through Homeland Security.
I'm sure EVERY Fire Department also receives these Taxpayer funds.

Even if somebody in our area has NOT payed their DUES,
they have contributed something through their Federal taxes.

My Wife & I feel the same way about Health Care.
It is a basic Human Right, NOT a For Profit commodity.
THAT is the way it should be in a civilized society.
The possibility that someone may try to game the system is NOT a valid reason for checking to see if someone has paid their dues before providing basic Humanitarian Assistance.
It is the Decent, Civilized thing to do.

[eilen]

163. By the time the FD got there the animals were probably already dead

from smoke inhalation. The owners had the responsibility to open the freaking door and shoo them out.

[Hissyspit]

195. I clearly acknowledged that the facts are not known.

Hypothetically it still applies. OP implies that failure to rescue the animals would be justified on ideological grounds.

[seabeyond]

54. you might ask why the owner did not take his animals out of house. or if there were animals

in the house to begin with.

dont you think those are relevent questions?

[Hissyspit]

77. I think it's clear in my initial postings that I had asked those questions. nt

[Scout]

56. you haven't got much of a point, if you ask me....

this man had PLENTY of time to save his own animals before the fire department even came to the neighbors, and if he'd have paid the fee, the fire department would have come to his house.

the deaths of the animals are on THEIR OWNER'S head!

[Hissyspit]

72. Sure they are.

But that's not the point. All of you have missed the point. The innocent animals are dead. They don't give a fuck about ideology.
Everybody could have rescued them.

[Mimosa]

87. More than 2 hours and several people couldn't get animals out of house? B.S. n/t

[Hissyspit]

130. Apparently.

But the animals DON'T CARE WHO GETS THEM OUT.
They just want someone TO GET THEM OUT.

They don't care about subscription fees. They don't care about taxes. They don't care about ideologies. They don't care about who is or isn't a libertarian freeloader. They don't care who the mayor is. They don't about who wants to make what political point.

They want to be rescued by SOMEONE.

Holy hell...

[liberation]

69. If you have to ask....

good grief. Seriously?

BTW, technically a red herring argument is not considered a "point" but rather a fallacy.


Cheers.

[Hissyspit]

73. No, it's not a red herring and yes I had to ask.

All of you have missed the point. The innocent animals are dead. They don't give a fuck about ideology.
Everybody/anybody could have rescued them.

[Bunny]

51. Thank you. You've described the situation in such a way that now it can

only be misunderstood by someone who is determined to misunderstand it, for whatever points they feel they need to score.

[asdjrocky]

52. That's Ca18 right?

Cardoza? Yeah, he's my rep too here in my part of Stockton. I do feel your pain.

[Xithras]

61. I wish.

CA-18 sorta wraps around Salida, but doesn't include any of it. Salida itself, and the area I'm in, are in CA-19. Rethug Radanovich is our rep.

Cardoza would be a breath of fresh air, even if he IS a Blue Dog.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. I gave the solution which many here

the loudest defending this in fact, found extreme.

CUT THEM OFF.

They don't want to pay.... fine. No sheriffs, no fire, no light district.

Let them live in that Galt Paradise. But NO I was too extreme.

And yes, people WILL die... but hey...

I was too extreme...

What you are facing is a competing world view, PERIOD. Time to let them live it.

[thelordofhell]

78. +10,000

I have a feeling that a lot of people here never read Atlas Shrugged and realized what poppycock it is. The County and the family dug their hole and are surprised they have to live in it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. I'll admit it, I HAVE to read it one of these days

as a science fiction writer it is part of the canon...

And if I get to teach a poli sci course, I got to read it since it's become part and parcel of the US Libertarian movement.

[Lilith Velkor]

114. Yeah, fuck all those children unlucky enough to have them for parents

:sarcasm:

[Hissyspit]

143. So, let the animals die.

The dogs and cats who have never read Ayn Rand. The children who don't know better, let them go without sheriff department protection?

The innocent.

[mwooldri]

194. Alternative view:

Annex the bloody city. By force.

Small fish in small pond - they'll make a relatively big splash.

Small fish in big pond - a nuisance that can be turned into shark-bait.

[itsrobert]

58. OP, Thanks for this post. It's a good one.

thanks

[WinkyDink]

70. These people aren't Libertarians; they are plain old freeloaders, leeches, greedheads.

[Pholus]

112. I love the bipartisanship! The National Review calls them the same things!

[distantearlywarning]

71. Plus 1000. Thanks for the commentary!

:toast:

[valerief]

75. God Bless Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beckkk! nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. Exactly right. n/t

[LarryNM]

79. In Any Society or Culture You either Work Toward a Humane

Social Contract are you Don't. It's not just the Government but the Entirety of the Populace. It will never be perfect, but those who choose to Live by Mammon, Die by Mammon.

[fasttense]

80. I live in the South surrounded by those who think they worship

at the alter of the Goddess Ayn Rand. But I would never condone allowing a house to burn down, no matter how much dislike I held in my heart for the family.

There has got to be a better way, a more compassionate way, a more humane way to get the money for the service. Letting someone's house burn down is just not on my lists of just desserts.

Yes, maybe they are free loaders but there has got to be a better way. There is always another way.

[seabeyond]

92. it is NOT about how one feels about the family or opinions or political views.... or

color, gender, sexual preference, social class, economic class or any other fuckin thing. geeeezus

ok, so there has got to be a better way. what would that be.

the posters that are the all evil, are looking for a better way. all we hear is.... cant let the house burn down, regardless.

regardless of what, taking out the towns overburdened FD?

what is the better way

because people look for a better way does not mean anyone wants any home burned down. jsut looking for a better way

[fasttense]

168. A better way.....

The better way would have been to get the check he offered to write (I would charge a whole lot more than $75, because of his wait until I really need the service attitude.). Once you have the check in hand, put out the fire.

If he refuses to honor his check take him to court for writing bad checks. Yes, it will be more costly to take the guy to court, but you should sue for attorney's fees too. And once you have prosecuted one or 2 people who fail to honor their checks, the word will get around. People would start paying their $75 instead of the thousands of dollars for court costs.

There is also another way. Just put the costs in their utility bill, electric or phone. Our electric company collects money for a charity. Our phone company collects money for 911 services.

So, there are other ways without letting the house burn down to the ground.

[seabeyond]

172. i dont know what the answer is. two days listening to people, reading, thinking, i dont know. but

i dont think that works. decades of experience in business and reading odions plan discussing all this, there are 8 municipals that cover. 5 do not do subscribe. they charge 500 a call. the majority is not paid. they simply absorb into their books.

the cost is too high. (i think that is the ultimate conclusion business and govt comes to) and likelihood of getting the money too small.

as far as putting it into other bills or taxes, the plan talked about it. but concluded no. the municipals could nto do that. would have to be county that is using municipals to do. they chose not. further, yesterday they chose to increase the municipals that subscribe.

just info...

not persuasion or opinion

[shireen]

109. +1

No matter what the circumstances or political ideology, allowing that home to burn was fundamentally immoral. It also endangered the entire neighborhood; wind could have blown glowing embers to other homes in the area and set them on fire too.

[cbdo2007]

81. So you propose Libertarianism to teach the Libertarians a lesson?

[seabeyond]

93. do you suggest overburdening the democratic safety net and destroying it in order to

teacher the libertarian the democratic way is the better way?

[cbdo2007]

126. No, I just get confused around here sometimes when people

are against Libertarianism so much and then now someone is touting it's benefits, to teach them a lesson.

It's like if someone breaks into your house and steals stuff from you and sells it at the pawn shop, so instead of calling the police you break into their house and steal their stuff and sell it to a pawn shop to teach them a lesson. Society doesn't benefit from your lesson, even though you will make somewhat of a distorted point to the individual person.

[seabeyond]

139. i get that. i hear ya...

i think what people are not hearing with me anyway... because from the beginning i have felt this, i dont see the house being burned as deserved, or a lesson. i understand why they did it, to draw the line of subscribe or dont (being forced by county into this position).

i was reading odions plan they drew up on their fire and learned a lot. like 5 municipals just simply absorb the cost and dont even try to get any money. they have smaller areas. but they just absorb it. all of them say, the majority of cost past to customer is not paid. they dont even try.

it is wrong

inherently wrong. as much as people think letting the house burn is wrong.

[uncommon]

171. How else will they learn that it doesn't work?

[bertman]

82. Thanks for the post, Xithras. Very interesting story. A coworker and I

were just discussing how many people she knows who are receiving disability payments and food stamps, who don't work a lick at a job, but work 'on the side' and pay no taxes, YET they are hardcore anti-government Republicans.

At least 30% of the human population is certifiably insane, and it's not the liberal 30%.

[B Calm]

89. Most people I know who are getting government money are republicans.

Most of them don't deserve it either. They're frauds who point their finger and blame everybody else who are on the dole while thinking that no one is looking at them.

[seabeyond]

94. all the people i knwo are republican, but then that is the area i live, as they lecture on welfare

queen. use to make my mouth hang open. now, shake head in disgust.

[B Calm]

96. I'm surrounded by millionaire farmers, collecting millions in subsidies,

and bitching about people being on unemployment!

[DeSwiss]

85. K&R

They should have invested in solar street lights. It creates jobs. Reduces CO2 emissions. And reduces costs.



- In fact, we all should be investing in solar street lighting.....

[Canuckistanian]

116. Do you think that a bunch of backwards-thinking social Darwinists would accept Solar lighting?

It would be like trying to get Visigoths to accept "plumbing" or "aqueducts".

[DeSwiss]

121. Backwards-thinking social Darwinists choosing solar street lighting?

Certainly not! I mean they ain't social Darwinist Visigoths for no good reason. Ya know?


- On the other hand, us brilliant civilized folk ain't doing it either.......

[Canuckistanian]

122. I like that quote in your pic

Consequences rule. Whether you like it or not.

[sulphurdunn]

88. I think the real issue here

is to ask these questions: Who the hell decided that Libertarianism was a legitimate political ideology? Who bankrolled these middle class nerf nerds to flutter from arcane meetings in college cafeterias to national respectability? Libertarians are too stupid, resentful and plain thumb sucking greedy to be taken seriously in a serious milieu. So, who bankrolls these clowns and why?

[seabeyond]

95. this small town and because it would be inhumane for them to do otherwise? jack up their taxes. nt

[MedicalAdmin]

156. Just a thought

But how about levying an assessment against anyone who doesn't subscribe. Works for road improvements.

[seabeyond]

160. i read odions plan on fire stuff... was interesting. that was something they talked about

or rolling into taxes. 13 cents rolled in.

but i guess they chose to do ntohing and even expand the subscribe. there are 8 municipals taking care of area. 5 dont subscribe. there is a 500 payment for each call it appears. they rarely collect. these municipals absorb costs.

i am assuming collecting and going after is not to their advantage. ends up costing more. not worth it.

i dont know

[Bluenorthwest]

97. I note you did not respond to my post

I know your region well.

[Xithras]

98. Your point has been addressed a dozen times in a dozen threads.

Could he be the "1" in the 19-1 vote ratio? Sure, but the other information since released on that makes it improbable. The guy has not only refused to pay this bill, but has stiffed the city before on previous bills...including an incident where they put the fire out anyway.

[Bluenorthwest]

101. The vote

It was not a 19 to one ratio, it was a vote of 19 to 1 with one abstaining. Are there only 20 people in the county? Or was that vote by a governing board? Seems like a very sparse county with less than two dozen people in it!
Also, what was reported on Countdown was that he had previously had a fire that was out by the time the FD arrived, and he paid them the next day. If you can provide a link for your version, that would be great.

[Bluenorthwest]

108. Y'all keep talking about 'ratios' and 'margins'

So pony up some proof. You are framing this man for a vote he did not make. Not cool.

[Catshrink]

99. I relate well to your post.

I also live in a Libertarian or neoLibertarian wasteland. No one wants to pay taxes but they sure want to have their services.

[Blue_Tires]

164. +1...you may be living close to me...

[grahamhgreen]

100. You're not making sense...

It should be illegal to have individualized for-pay fire protection.

That is the point, not conflating taxes (Salida) with privatized con games.

[Bluenorthwest]

105. Correct

I agree with you.

[dpbrown]

106. Cut them off

No water, no mail, no sewer, no sheriff.

[Pholus]

111. At least you're in agreement with the National Review! They said let it burn too.

Who said we can't be bipartisan! :)

[The Uncola]

113. k&r

[Canuckistanian]

117. Great post. Says it all.

It IS an addiction. And like all addcitions, it hurts everyone AROUND the addicted person as much as it does the junkie.

[krispos42]

118. Libertarianism never fails because socialism always bails it out n/t

[EFerrari]

138. And that's how socialists avoid becoming what they resist. n/t

[Hansel]

119. The right wing and wealthy make similar arguments as to why they don't want to

pay taxes to support the poor or unwed mothers or gays or black or Hispanics, etc. Because they see people who abuse the system and then broad brush everyone with that brush.

You are sliding down a slippery slope here and are making their arguments for them as to why we should not pay for services for people who you don't think are pulling their weight. Because some people don't pay the same and some people don't pay at all. They make arguments that if you couldn't afford a baby, you shouldn't have had one. If you don't work it's because you're lazy and it's your fault. Or I don't want to pay for food stamps for someone who is going to buy drugs or beer with them. Or you had the kid, if it gets sick it's your responsibility to pay, not mine.

You seem to be making the same argument they make in order to somehow make your case that we should all willingly pay taxes. But it doesn't make sense. Because you have picked out people you don't want to spend your money on and they have picked out theirs. You're on the same side, you just have different people that you don't want to pay for.

You don't even know if this guy is a Libertarian, yet you have taken a grotesque tragedy and through your own biases have justified the unjustifiable.

I'm not sure how you think you are going to convince anyone that they should pay their taxes when you are making their argument for them. You are making their point perfectly.

Does it make you a bad liberal? No, it makes you just like them.

[Pholus]

120. +1

It's just more moral scolding....

[Pithlet]

123. You're really equating the poor, unwed mothers, gays, blacks, etc

to people making political choices? Hmmmmm...,

So let me get this straight. The city really does have to keep supplying the county a service for free? While the county citizens keep consciously making the decision to vote not to fund them? Wow.

[Pholus]

149. Not as much as having some fun noting that you and Doughy Pantload agree...

Now, based on the quality of the company you're keeping I have everything I need to know about the ethics and morals behind this.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248658/pay-spray-fire-department-doing-right-thing-kevin-d-williamson

and

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248665/re-pay-spray-jonah-goldberg

In the end, it's a spirit of what is right and what is wrong. It is WRONG to idly stand by when you have a chance to improve the world, regardless of the opinions you have about the people who may have put themselves into this mess. The administration/paperwork/beancounting comes later and hiding behind them as a reason for inaction is merely a dodge for lesser motives like sticking it to people you don't like and...well, that is kind of wrong and kind of evil too.

So what about the total a**clown who wrote the rules under which the fee operated? Why has nobody found out who this person is and sent them some love in the form of some awkward questions? Surely this upstanding individual had to envision the day that his/her finest would have to be placed in a position where they had to sit on their hands while disaster unfolded. I'm sure that this enlightened person also was thinking "good enough for them" and so had checked their humanity at the door as well. Even Arizona's stupid motorist laws says that "we'll help but you'll be responsible for paying for our time." Plenty of legal precedent on that kind of clause. Was that too many big words for the politician or was it just not "tough enough on crime?"

Anyway, I'm just enjoying the ironies of supposed liberals and progressives having an old-fashioned conservative gospel hour.... I guess even DU is sliding to the right in the current environment. :)

[Pithlet]

176. if something is right, then it's right. Because a conservative agrees, it's suddenly automatically

wrong? Do you think it's okay for the city to lose its fire department? Because that's what will happen if they're forced to provide a service for free without payment. ETA I doubt that the author of that article and I actually see eye to eye for the same reasons. He probably supports a "pay for spray" I don't. I just don't think a city should lose its fire departmet because the neighboring county can't be arsed to raise a tax to support them.

[Pholus]

188. You lose me when you present rationalizations for a profoundly inhumane act. Like they do.

When the National Review climbs on board I grab my wallet because long years of conditioning have taught me that there is a rhetorical mugging about to take place.

As just one of the smarmier examples, do you remember when they justified the acts of the guys scalping bottled water to Katrina survivors at $20 per 20 ounces? To the National Review it was the glories of the free market making sure that critical supplies did not run out due to wastrels.

See, too many DU'ers seem to revel in "the libertarians" getting what came to them for not funding the FD through taxes. In a manner identical with the tactics used by the conservative moral scolds going after "Cadillac driving welfare queens." And just like them I think you miss your target in your zeal to brand them with "they had it coming."

http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/955/public/news987695.html

Whoever made the rules by which the FD operated should be publicly made to answer for the zero tolerance part of the rule. Even loonytarian Arizona allows for public reimbursement for rescue acts.

[Pithlet]

189. It's not rationalizing it. It's simply stating they had no other choice.

Because it's the truth. They couldn't keep going and fighting their fires for free. What can a city do? Just give up their fire department? That's what you'd have them do? Are you aware that they were bleeding money because of this?

[Pholus]

190. Ill thought out rules like these will kill people. But I guess it's okay if the money is right?

Look, the whole issue is that when both the guy AND HIS "fee-paying" NEIGHBOR offer to pay for the call there was no ability to change the rules to handle it. ADMINISTRATIVE FAIL. MORAL FAIL. FAIL.

[Pithlet]

191. Even more people will die when there's NO fire department.

As it is, more people in the city are probably dying as it is because a fire department that is meant for the city only is being stretched thin because this county refuses to fund them properly. The city folk? You know, the ones who actually ARE paying their taxes? The ones who are actually on average poorer than the ones in the county? Talk about MORAL FAIL!

[Pithlet]

192. It just makes me sick.

This county keeps refusing to fund them. But they show up anyway. And then they don't pay. And the city loses money. But they show up anyway. THey lose more money. But the county doesn't care, and still doesn't fund them. So they finally say enough! We can't do this anymore. From now on, we only show up when you pay. We can' do this anymore. We have our own poorer citizens to worry about. So the inevitable happens and our oh so liberal media hops right on i! And what do we do? We harp on the city! Instead of putting the blame where it really belongs. Yeah. That's fair.

[Pholus]

197. I can tell you're sick. So we agree on one thing.

[Pithlet]

200. Yep. I'm the sick one for caring about the poorer, tax paying citizens!

Up is down on DU today.

[Swamp Rat]

124. Ok, maybe you have a point, but I would have helped the guy save his house and animals anyway.

I do not see the need to scorn a poor farmer, no matter his political stripe, especially since he is still sitting in front of the burnt remains of his life, and while the real villains continue to destroy our democracy.

[PassingFair]

125. What kind of person could stand by and watch that house burn....?

That guy had a wife and children, not to mention
the pets that perished. They have no shelter now.

What about THEM?

I don't want to live in a country that would
stand by and let this kind of shit happen.

Unbelievable!

[Swamp Rat]

127. It's not unbelievable. I watched my nation sit back and let my city drown... slowly.

Of course, there were a lot of good people, including DUers, who did come to our aid, but overall, the experience was horrible, a living nightmare that will never leave me... to say the least. :(

[ElsewheresDaughter]

128. If libertarians hate government so much they need to move to Samalia...there they will find....

their utopia

[Pholus]

157. Now, now. Moldova is not THAT bad for a former soviet republic.

[Odin2005]

129. Interesting Prespective. K&R.

[creon]

134. Abstraction

Libertarianism is an abstraction which has no practical use.

If applied to reality, the consequences would be catastrophic for society.

[cbdo2007]

135. There is no political theory that is 100% correct.

That's why the multi-party system works is because they different aspects even each other out. If either the Democratic or Republican viewpoints were individually implemented we would see the same catastrophic results.

[blackspade]

140. OK, I'll wade into the stew.

I have read multiple threads on this poor families loss and I'm pretty appalled at the petty three stooges eye poking going on on this site.

There are some things that are bugging me about this whole deal.
1) A family is homeless. All of their stuff is burned up. We should all empathize with them over their loss. It is tragic that supposed progressives here are so hard hearted that they would be consider this families house burning down 'just desserts' for presumed libertarians.
2) I keep seeing references to this guy being part of the 'rich' county crowd. The man was living in a double wide, not a mansion. He also is not personally responsible for the crappy state of the county government in which he lives. To paint him as a rich freeloader on the poor city government is dishonest.
3) The $75 fire subscription is inherently regressive. Does the man with a 15 room house only pay $75? Does the man making $1 mil have a problem paying this fee as opposed to a guy on welfare/SS/unemployment?
What happens if there if you are a renter? Is it your responsibility to pay the fee? If the owner doesn't pay should the FD watch as all your shit burns up?
4) If I'm driving through the county and my car catches fire, will I have to watch it burn up with the FD watching? I didn't pay the city fee, so am I a freeloader too? The whole problem with this is that we all pay taxes and expect that basic public services are there to help us in our time of need no matter where we live or travel to.
5) The animals. None of us know what the owner was doing, but I suspect that putting the fire out was his main concern. If you have ever fought a fire, you would know that if you let it go for even a minute to do anything (like run into the house for valuables and animals)the fire will be beyond your control. As it happens, it spread despite their efforts to fight the fire with garden hoses. The animals dying is tragic icing on a horrible situation.
6) The fact that the FD would have been payed on the spot for their efforts by both the homeowner and even the neighbor underscores the punitive nature of the whole episode. They wanted to make an example of this guy and no amount of money was going to prevent them from using this event to scare the rest of the county residents into paying the $75 fee. That is extortion of the worst kind.

Anyway, I've said my piece.
L8R

[rpannier]

152. Very Good

I like your post
Quite thoughtful

[eilen]

166. I think the FD should have put out the fire, esp. when he offered to pay

on the spot. However, I also think that they should have some kind of contract when that happens that allows them to pursue such owners in court when they don't pay.

Most people, when their house catches on fire rush to get all the humans and animals out first, call the FD, then items of importance to them.

I'm sure some church will help this family, they are like that in TN whenever there is a disaster or fire.

The fact they live in a DW does not mean they are poor. Lots of rural areas in TN have DWs as they are inexpensive, spacious and they actually can be pretty tricked out. Many will invest in lots of land, plunk a DW there and then have a few outbuildings-- barn, sheds, large garages. It's just a matter of priorities. Some would prefer to invest more money in their horses or cars.

[krkaufman]

144. Great story... but why did the county start funding the street lights?

Is the county being reimbursed for that service? Or did the citizens offer to pay for more patrols when they opted for their streets to go dark?

[davidhilton]

147. Hope your house never burns . . .

[NuttyFluffers]

148. i am so sorry you have to live through this. :(

let us hope one day that the light and love of better solutions, such as collective mutual support, will one day pierce their consciousness and free them from the cycle of hurting themselves and others through their refusal to share and cooperate.

it's a tragic situation when you cannot save people from their own vices and are left in an "Intervention" situation where tough love is all that is left...

wish life was easier, but some people seem to only learn the hard way. :(

[qb]

153. What a freaking deadbeat city.

Perhaps what is needed is a residents' bill of rights to basic municipal services... funded by municipal taxes (or county, state or federal taxes as needed to fairly provide adequate services to low-income areas).

[eilen]

158. Apparently the cheap-ass wouldn't pay for trash pick-up either

thus the fire. His grandson was burning garbage, polluting everyone else's air.

[w8liftinglady]

159. um-here's an example-one of the kinder ones...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9268164

[Flipper999]

162. I have to agree.

And no, you are not a bad liberal. The whole point of being in a society is that you contribute to it, and gain from it. Libertarians are living in a sick fantasy world where they refuse to pay into the system, but they whine and cry to be supported by it when times get too tough for these "rugged individualists."

I have no sympathy left for people who continually hurt themselves and others. Tea partiers, libertarians, and conservatives have all bought into Ayn Rand's lie. And we are all paying for it.

[MrMickeysMom]

165. Surely, all 18,000 of them were not Libertarians...

Plus, you didn't go into what happened to taxes at the County level. It's the unincorporated portion of the County, so do people living there GET to vote? This is the best argument for a referendum to these same residents to become their own govt.

That's going to to take a lot more guts then you are witness to, but Home Rule might be the answer.

And, I'm kind of wondering about the "Does that make me a bad liberal?" comment. I don't interpret your view as liberal as much as I do very, very disgusted and angry. Surely, you don't sound like a liberal.

[reggie the dog]

167. they are not libertarian

people gave me and my buddy wierd looks for walking around smoking a joint in turlock, we just left yosemite and stopped for lunch and figured we would spark up while looking for a place to eat, we did the same thing in sanata cruz and no one gave us wierd looks at all. libertarians would not give a fuck what we were smoking they are christianitarians who want govt to leave them alone but be there to fuck with all the people who dont live like they do

[lunatica]

169. My response will be lost here but I'm tired of decent people paying the price

for what idiots do. It's always the same. One person out of a thousand steals and the reaction is that the thousand who didn't steal have to be burdened with some penalty. One person is unprofessional and the thousand get new draconian rules. One person steals and the thousand are forced to take a lie detection test. One person breaks the rules and the thousand get more rules to burden them.

Yet the one person seems to get away with shit while the thousand get more oppressed.

[felix_numinous]

173. Thank you for spelling the issue out so clearly! nt

[cindyperry2009]

174. I live in KY

and it is sad the lack of common sense and lack of education it just makes me shake my head.

[Evasporque]

175. key word for Conservatives and Libs....FREELOADERS....nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

177. I live in red state hell Kansas but I don't believe it's ever okay to let a house burn down

Liberals are compassionate people.

[Fire1]

199. We are compassionate but at some point I believe one

reaps what they sow.

[proud2BlibKansan]

201. It's not my job to decide who's worthy and who isn't

Karma's a bitch but it's not my responsibity.

[ProSense]

183. What I take away from the incident is:

You should care about the well-being of all people, and you are your brother's keeper.

Krugman has a post up about NJ Gov. Christie's decision to reject a second tunnel under the Hudson, the interesting thing is the first comment, which is posted here.

People want services, but aren't willing to pay for them. The entire point of government is to provide services for the common good.

[DaveJ]

184. "You are not free if you have to PAY..."

I can't believe they don't understand that our slave based society is fostered by banks and other corporations, not by goverment.

[louis-t]

185. This is a great story that needs to be told.

It needs national attention. The only ones who can properly shed light on this story are the prime-time MSNBC lineup.

[bvar22]

186. Don't forget all those "Welfare Queens"!

I got MINE!
Get your own!

All Hail St Ronnie!

[Divine Discontent]

187. interesting indeed... and a common story across many small communities. sad...

[tularetom]

196. Salida exists in its present form because the Stanislaus supes lacked the cojones to say no

In the 80s and 90s when the City of Modesto started to get wise to the fact that letting developers do whatever they wanted was a stupid idea, the developers just moved outside the city limits, bought cheap land in Salida and began throwing up subdivisions to build houses to sell to commuters to the Bay Area, one hour away.

The county was warned many times that allowing residential development outside of cities without normal municipal services was a dumb idea and it would come back to bite them in the ass. But they wanted the commercial sales tax generating development that often follows residential so they jumped in with both feet. They got a few car dealers to relocate out of the city onto North McHenry Avenue. But most of the commercial development has remained inside the city limits so the hoped for sales tax has not been realized.

Under various CA statutes, the county could have if they wanted, forced developers to form lighting and drainage maintenance districts as a condition of approving their final subdivision maps. These provide for an annual assessment on each parcel to be collected with the property taxes. Unlike the existing lighting district in Salida, there is no vote by property owners as to the formation of these districts. The costs of providing the services are simply spread over the lots annually and there it is. IIRC there is no annual public hearing required. The district is there to see at the time the homeowner buys the property. If he doesn't like it tough shit.

Stanislaus County after listening to the developers whine about how forcing them to form maintenance district would drive growth elsewhere (like that's a bad thing), folded like a cheap umbrella and rescinded the district requirement. So if the county now has to pay when these residents snivel about the lights being out it's their own fault.

This is unfortunate for you as a county resident. The only solution is to get some supervisors with actual spines. It's a problem everywhere in the valley, but believe me, Stanislaus County is one of the worst.