Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
j_b

a libertarian wet dream

Recommended Posts

If unfunded liabilities to the tune of ~$3 trillion that will crowd out funding for parks, social services, etc, etc, etc is piddling then...sure.

 

This is happening in real time in WA.

 

$3 trillion in WA? Certainly not. Most WA state public pension funds are fully funded.

 

Anyway, you weren't talking about unfunded pensions but about pay raises for cops and bus drivers when there are much bigger fish to fry, yet not a peep from you about that ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"According to documents prepared by the county in 2008, a paltry 0.13 cent increase in property taxes on each household would be all it would take to fund fire services for the towns within the county."

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/05/after-firefighters-obion-expands/

"Let's save 0.13 cent so that joe blow who can't pay for fire protection is further in the hole once his house is burnt to the ground".

Freakin sociopaths!

It's clear that the "victim" in this story could have paid the $75, but didn't. He was counting on other people to foot the bill for fire services for him.

Who, exactly, is the sociopath here?

 

The one not showing compassion, or comprehension that a community is as healthy as its members, when a homeowner made a bone-headed move and paid for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my regressive fantasy world, you wanna live on the coast and savor the sunsets over a nice Shiraz on the back deck, you take all of the financial risk associated with building and owning a property there - and no one else.

 

In your regressive world those who can't afford fire protection won't have any (same with education, etc ..). Taxation should always be progressive despite what you say the rest of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not in favor of forced vaccination for a variety of practical and philosophical reasons, but I am in favor of allowing people to bring civil suits against unvaccinated people who transmit whatever disease they're the vector for when they transmit the disease to infants, the immunosuppresed, or any other people who either can't be vaccinated or can't be effectively protected by vaccines as a result of another medical condition.

 

This is where the libertarian argument gets silly. Having a simple requirement to get vaccinated elimates the lawyer feeding frenzy. Don't like it? Too bad, so sad - you're out voted in a civilized society.

 

Regarding WA pensions, we're not so bad actually:

"First and foremost, all of Washington's ongoing pension systems are healthy and well funded, in fact they are among the best funded pension systems in the country," Treasurer Jim McIntire said in a statement. "But funding for two pension plans that were closed in 1977 - PERS1 and TRS 1 - pose large issues that can no longer be avoided...Over time, it has been easy for lawmakers of both parties to postpone payments to these funds in the face of tough budget decisions. We now face the consequences of those past deferrals."

 

The ones that face issues are about 77% funded and something will need to change there - but not so much given that the folks receiving these benefits are dying off. The system for current employees is different and solvent for the foreseeable future.

 

Your argument regarding some benefits has more merit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's clear that the "victim" in this story could have paid the $75, but didn't. He was counting on other people to foot the bill for fire services for him.

 

Maybe his welfare check couldn't cover the $75 cause he wanted to spend it on beer huh? How come jb couldn't pony up the money for the poor soul from his big government paycheck? NOW who's the victim? THE RICH BEER SWILLERS, WHO'VE BEEN SCRIMPING AND SAVING TO BUY IMPORT BEER I THINK NOT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not in favor of forced vaccination for a variety of practical and philosophical reasons, but I am in favor of allowing people to bring civil suits against unvaccinated people who transmit whatever disease they're the vector for when they transmit the disease to infants, the immunosuppresed, or any other people who either can't be vaccinated or can't be effectively protected by vaccines as a result of another medical condition.

 

This is where the libertarian argument gets silly. Having a simple requirement to get vaccinated elimates the lawyer feeding frenzy. Don't like it? Too bad, so sad - you're out voted in a civilized society.

 

Regarding WA pensions, we're not so bad actually:

"First and foremost, all of Washington's ongoing pension systems are healthy and well funded, in fact they are among the best funded pension systems in the country," Treasurer Jim McIntire said in a statement. "But funding for two pension plans that were closed in 1977 - PERS1 and TRS 1 - pose large issues that can no longer be avoided...Over time, it has been easy for lawmakers of both parties to postpone payments to these funds in the face of tough budget decisions. We now face the consequences of those past deferrals."

 

The ones that face issues are about 77% funded and something will need to change there - but not so much given that the folks receiving these benefits are dying off. The system for current employees is different and solvent for the foreseeable future.

 

Your argument regarding some benefits has more merit.

 

 

I hope so - good news if it's true, but most pension systems around the country are still basing their projections on consistent returns of ~8% or more, which many people think is quite optimistic, and will leave taxpayers on the hook for the difference.

 

I am about as rabidly pro-vaccine as they come, but still think that the practical and philosophical arguments for persuading people to vaccinate voluntarily are much stronger than those behind forcible vaccinations.

 

I'd be fine with a status quo where no one is forced to vaccinate, but they're required if you want to attend public schools, join the army, etc. I think that's basically what we have now, although anti-vaccine folks have proven adept at exploiting religious exemptions that I'd like to see eliminated.

 

Whether or not people who's intentionally un-vaccinated kids contract preventable diseases and die should be subject to the same criminal penalties that apply when they intentionally withhold medical care is an interesting question. I think the answer is no, since the failure to prevent isn't the same as the failure to treat, but that question seems to come up in these discussions every now and then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh! Lets discuss the insurance industry (racket) as a whole! You pay a company to protect your assets and then they use the money you pay them to hire lawyers and detectives to figure out how to get out of paying you when you really need it! Deductibles are carefully set to average theft $ rates, for example, so you never use the insurance (unless you want to commit fraud). Of course you can pay more for a lower deductible! This is all optional of course, except for the mandatory insurances.

 

Not that it would run better as a state institution. Just bitching about the racket.

 

As long as you don't have to buy what they're selling as a condition of existing, and the same statutes that apply to breach of contract in other domains apply - I am a big fan of insurance, when it's actually only insurance and not just a pre-payment mechanism for funding some kind of routine consumption.

 

Cheap way to protect against black-swan(ish) events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe - but enough of an outlier to be a minimal problem in reality for a few reasons.

 

The first is that the actual incidence of home fires is so low these days, which is why firemen have found ways to keep busy by responding to medical calls.

So nobody should pay.

 

Then there's the fact that not paying would probably cost them more elsehwere, like on their homeowner's policy, banks would require it as a condition of extending a loan, etc.

 

And finally - there's peer pressure from the neighbors.

So everybody should pay.

 

Wouldn't be perfect, but IMO it'd be better than someone in a duplex subsidizing the cost of fire suppression for someone living in a mansion, much less someone who doesn't own any property forking over money to protect someone else's.

So there should be some kind of progressive fee system. Something like a property tax?

 

I'm just trying to understand why it wouldn't be simpler to impose a required fee. I don't see the advantage of allowing people to opt out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely simpler. Whether or that also means better largely comes down to a political value judgment, which probably depends on whether you think that the state has a legitimate and compelling interest in putting out fires in structures that the owners don't consider worth paying to protect - at least beyond what's necessary to try to save whoever might be trapped in them.

 

Given the current state of affairs, I'd be happy to compromise with a required fee that's proportionate to the value of the structure being protected and the cost/complexity of responding to an actual fire in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should charge a fee that increases with the distance from the fire station, to effectively offset the costs of fuel burnt by the firefighters driving to distant mansions from their firehall in the low rent district.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GONY%201.jpg

 

And go back to gangs of firefighters who burn your house down if you don't pay up, like Noo Yawk back in the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lame. Dude, it's your ideology that will exclude folks from having fire protection (and education and ..), which will surely kill some of them, so don't attempt to portray me as the bad guy who is going to blow you up (wtf?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's much better that we go with your ideology of big government no freedom wherein the government removes the right to choose if you want or need fire protection and makes it mandatory for everyone, NO EXCEPTIONS. Anyone who doesn't get it will go to jail. That will help this gentleman next time, as you seem so unprepared and reluctant to help him yourself this time.

 

Pfft, lame is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lame. Dude, it's your ideology that will exclude folks from having adequate protection on routes, which will surely kill some of them, so don't attempt to portray me as the bad guy who is going to blow you up (wtf?).

 

Sport climbs for all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the true spirit of the free market!

 

The "free market" would not have denied him service after he offered to pay what ever it took like the government did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the true spirit of the free market!

 

The "free market" would not have denied him service after he offered to pay what ever it took like the government did.

 

Of course PP. Anything's possible in fantasy land :rocken:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it's much better that we go with your ideology of big government no freedom wherein the government removes the right to choose if you want or need fire protection and makes it mandatory for everyone, NO EXCEPTIONS. Anyone who doesn't get it will go to jail. That will help this gentleman next time, as you seem so unprepared and reluctant to help him yourself this time.

 

Pfft, lame is right.

 

Are you retarded, Bill? because you certainly sound like it when you spew your libertarian nonsense. I am not for big or small government, I am for the government necessary to do the job properly. Sometimes, in some sectors, significant government intervention is absolutely necessary. Somewhere, at some other time, no so much. If you don't like the social contract as interpreted in your region, you can move to an unincorporated area far away from infrastructure and communities that expect basic services like fire protection. There are still plenty of isolated places in North America and you won't be mooching off services provided by our tax dollars.

Edited by j_b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×