Reason Morning Links: Pentagon Goes Green, Dems Gain in Polls, Free Loans in Japan


NEXT: "We've got a huge spending problem"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. $75 fee assnessed to rural homeowners.

    I don’t know what this means, but it doesn’t look like the typical way municipalities collect fees.

    1. The town fire department offered to provide service to the surrounding rural areas if homeowners paid a fee. The guy in the story had several chances to do so and opted not to.

      1. Will his taxes still pay for the firefighters’ pensions?

        1. No.

          That’s the whole point. The fire department is for the town, not the surrounding rural area. But they offered an arrangement by which those living out there could pay $75 and the fire dept would agree to come out and fight their fire. This guy chose not to pay, then expected them to come put out his fire. His fire spread to his neighbor’s field. His neighbor had paid the $75, so they put out that fire, but not the guy’s house.

          And there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the liberals and progressive who hold this up as a failing of the free market system and, by extension, a fundamental principle of libertarianism.

          I see it as an excellent illustration of one of the virtues of libertarianism – emphasizing the need to live with the consequences of your chosen course of action.

          1. Looks to me like you’re wailing and gnashing your teeth because libertardianism failed.

            Live with the consequences of your fucked-up worldview.

            1. No wailing or gnashing going on here. It’s not my house that burned. I paid for excellent home insurance and pay taxes for an excellent local fire department.

              I live in a world where people should live with the consequences of their choices – good or bad. That’s called reality, fuckstain.

              1. This guy has home insurance, too.

                And the only reason you see a fuckstain is because I left it there after having my way with your girlfriend/wife/mom.

                Two can play at your little name-calling game, cockgobbler.

                1. I wonder if he paid premiums on the basis of having coverage from an actual fire department. If he did, I wonder if he has insurance after all.

                2. I left it there after having my way with your girlfriend/wife/mom.

                  What’s this, your “all-purpose” put down?

                  Hey, shouldn’t you be getting out of your dorm room and off to class about now?

                  1. I would, but your girlfriend/wife/mom is sucking my cock.

                    Don’t put on the big boy insult pants unless you can wear ’em, thundercunt.

                    1. And just because I like to put screw drivers and potatoes up my ass does’t mean I live in a dorm.

                    2. And for the record, when my girlfriend/wife/mom poops her pants, I get to clean it up. I LOVE YOU MOMMY!!!

                    3. Don’t put on the big boy insult pants unless you can wear ’em, thundercunt.

                      O.K., thanks for the advice there, big fella. Now toddle along like a nice little boy – I’m sure your customers are expecting their morning paper and it looks like you’re late. Be careful – I know you just got the training wheels off – and don’t forget to look both ways before crossing the road.

                      And I’m sure old man Johnson is waiting for that extra special service you give him for that extra $1.25 each week.

                    4. I would, but your girlfriend/wife/mom is sucking my cock.

                      You call that little peanut a cock? What the fuck you looking here on the monitor for – the joke’s in your hand.

              2. Fuckstain. You nailed that one. I mean this assfuck is basically saying that this stingy motherfucker should get free fire fighting services because, well, who knows why. What an asscunt.

            2. —“Looks to me like you’re wailing and gnashing your teeth because libertardianism failed.”—

              Not a failure of libertarianism. It was a public (city) fire department, not a private one. The guy had the option of paying for coverage and declined. He lost.

              1. Denial, river in Egypt, etc.

          2. A private fire department would have put the fire out & charged him the full cost. I’m just guessing here, but I bet the city fire department probably couldn’t have legally done that. So the just had to let the house burn as a warning to others to pay the fee.

            1. “A private fire department would have put the fire out & charged him the full cost.”

              Yeah, private companies are always coming around and performing services for me when I have not paid for them…They just say, hey man, no prob, just pay us later!

              1. That happens to me a lot too. Mechanics fix my car and then hand me a bill when it’s done, I get doctor’s bills weeks after coming home from their office…hell, even restaurants don’t hand me a check until I’ve already eaten my meal. Wild, huh?

                1. Wow, that’s just crazy talk!

                  I have a dentist who doesn’t even make me pay after he’s performed the service. I walk out the door without paying anything – he sends me a bill later! Can you believe it?

                  And my buddy is an eye doctor – he doens’t make me pay him cash at all. Instead, I take him out and buy him dinner at his favorite Chinese restaurant every once in a while. It’s this crazy system under which he provides a service and I provide him with something he perceived to be of equal value, rather than just a cash payment. There should be a word for that type of transaction.

                  1. I just had a root canal. $207 at the counter beforehand, billed the rest in the mail, pending insurance copay.

                2. It varies with the restaurant. McDs makes you pay up front.

                  1. You call McDs a restaurant?

                    1. You call McDs a restaurant?

                      Fuddruckers does the same thing and they’re definitely a restaurant.

              2. I do it all the time. I called Orkin up the other day & asked them to come spray my house. They showed up & sprayed my house. I THEN paid them for the service.

                1. This story made Olbermann cry last night. His tears were yummy.

              3. They just say, hey man, no prob, just pay us later!

                This is how the emergency room works.

              4. Did the fire dept bring their own water to put out the fire?

              5. Seriously, MNG, did you miss a cup of coffee today or what?

              6. They just say, hey man, no prob, just pay us later!

                No, but in this case they might have put out enough of the fire for him to go in and get his checkbook.

    2. I beat Balko to this one yesterday 😉

  2. “McMahon, Blumenthal clash in a contentious debate for Connecticut U.S. Senate seat.”

    I think this joke is obligated by federal law: in a steel cage?

    1. No, that’s for Senatemania, the week before the election.

      1. After the election she will remove her masked to reveal that all along it was Dean Malenko!

    2. No no no…..the steel cage match doesn’t take place until the weekend before the election.

      At the debate you need one of McMahon’s cronies to come in and blast Blumenthel with a steel chair while the moderator isn’t looking. This establishes the NEED for the steel cage. Duh!

  3. Tennessee residents just found out that libertarianism is fun in theory, not so much in practice. Burn, baby, burn!

    1. My dog’s asshole tastes like fresh creamery butter. But it’s not really butter. I find that to be so cool!

      1. And now Barely Has A Penis has resorted to logging in as someone else — which, frankly, anyone would want to do if they led this poor pervert’s existence.

        1. Nope, not me dude. If I have something to say, I have no problem doing it with my established screen name.

          I know, it’s so hard to believe that anyone other than me would recognize you for the pathetic, screeching little fuckstain you so clearly are, junior.

          1. Do you read your own comments?
            You do realize your predilection for scat porn is coming out in your speech, right?

            1. Oh dear! O woe is me! Libertardian, with his superior intellect, piercing wit and fabled wisdom has found me out! He has exposed my proclivities for coprophagic pornography!

              Heh, I actually made myself chuckle when I wrote that last one.

              Where was I? Oh yeah – sure, junior, whatever. Just keep telling yourself whatever it is you need to try to believe to convince yourself that you’re superior to and smarter than everyone else. Otherwise, the full reality of your useless and pathetic existence might come crashing through that little shell you’ve created for yourself.

              1. Wow, look how you react when the ideology your entire existence revolves around burns to the ground.

                Time to turn the gun on yourself.

  4. Firefighters watch house burn to the ground because owners didn’t pay $75 fee assnessed to rural homeowners.

    Frankly, the city should have put out hte fire and billed him the several thousand dollars it cost to do so, if for no other reason, than to silence the intolerable screeching of the species known as the Northeast Conflating Leftist Loon.

    1. While the firefighters were standing outside his place, he actually offered to pay whatever it cost to have them put it out and they refused.

      1. I wonder if he sounded anything like John Turturro in Miller’s Crossing, as he’s being led to the woods?

        He’s a cheap fool who gambled and lost.

        1. Great reference.

          1. “Look into your heart!”

      2. They may not have had a choice. Depending on the language of the contract, they may have been constrained from doing so.

        1. Oh, I have no doubt that the city’s lawyers already considered this senario and advised accordingly. I’m just wishing for wailing noise of stupidity to pot down a few notches.

      3. While the firefighters were standing outside his place, he actually offered to pay whatever it cost to have them put it out and they refused.

        Same thing that would happen if you total your car and then go to an insurance company offering to pay the premiums if they replace it.

        1. “Whatever the cost” seems to imply to me, given your analogy, that the equivalent would not be ‘offering to pay the premiums’ but “offering to pay the full cost of repairs or replacement.”

          Which you would do anyways…

          It doesn’t appear he was trying to get out cheaper, just that he didn’t have a personal fire department on hand…

    2. JW,

      If they had put it out and sent the hillbilly the bill, I GAYRONTEE that the story would have been all about how the fire department tried to gouge him with their fee.

      He would have gotten on the news crying about how the evil FD sent him a bill for $5000 (or whatever) which they know he can’t pay because he couldn’t even afford the measly $75 yearly fee.

      The same progressives would have gotten on the blogs and tut-tutted about the moral degeneracy of charging a guy to save his house.

      I’m sure the Chief knew that and decided that if he was going to catch holy hell no matter what he did, then he might as well have the satisfaction of watching the house burn.

      I’d love to be in a local diner and hear what the locals think about all this. 3-1 that the guy is a dumbass and the locals are 100% behind the FD.

      1. He would have gotten on the news crying about how the evil FD sent him a bill for $5000 (or whatever) which they know he can’t pay because he couldn’t even afford the measly $75 yearly fee.

        From the stories I have read, he could have afforded the $75. He had insurance, which is certainly more than $75 per year.

        He thought the fire department would respond even if he hadn’t paid the fee–i.e. he was depending on his neighbors paying up to pay for his fire coverage.

        1. You have a much higher opinion of this gentleman than I do.

          I would bet a lot that once he received the bill, he would have complained to anyone and everyone about the size of it.

  5. “Firefighters watch house burn to the ground because owners didn’t pay $75 fee assnessed to rural homeowners.”

    Fee for services in action, libertarians celebrate!

    1. Except the fee is levied by a city, which I will bet dollars to donuts gets federal money for its fire apparatus. Demanding payment after coercing funding seems a little shifty, don’t ya think.

      Now if it was a private firm based in profit you know what could have happened? “Sir you didn’t pay the $75 fee, therefore the cost is $1,000 for us to extinguish your fire. You can pay by any form of credit or debit card I have a mobile register my Chief’s truck.”

      Any more silly comments?

      1. wouldnt the homeowner, when told of 1000 dollar fee for extinguishing, then simply hand over the info from his home owners insuranse policy?? sort of like what happens in doctors office…….

        1. Only if his policy covers such a situation (like health is DESIGNED to do).

    2. I am. The guy took a gamble. He figured the chance his house would burn down was so small that he could save $75 and not have fire protection. He lost. I don’t see the problem here.

      1. Not only that, he said he expected that they would put out a fire even if he didn’t pay the $75.

        1. Again, because it is a government. No one expects McDs to give them a cheeseburger, but everyone expects cities to do all sorts of things.

          1. Wrong hmm.

            I don’t expect New York City to provide me with services, as I don’t live there.

            I don’t expect England to write me a welfare check, because I don’t live there.

            He shouldn’t have expected the city to put out his fire, because he doesn’t live in the city.

            1. Straw-man #???

              Proximity obviously plays a role. I figured that was a given. But it appears you may be less inclined to actually thinking and more inclined to banging on a keyboard like a retarded chimpanzee.

              1. If I had a strawman, I’d suck its strawdick.

                1. After he fucked my dirty asshole with it. Ass to mouth I think they call it.

              2. Proximity obviously plays a role.

                On what basis?

                The fact that you just made it up?

                Actually, the fact that proximity apparently plays a role in the altruism most people practice is an argument against it and not for it. Because it’s so obviously arbitrary. It’s designed to evade or escape the fact that if the moral premises of altruism are true, you stand in a state of moral duty to every last resident of the Earth, and you are currently failing utterly to fulfill your responsibilities.

              3. Oh sorry!

                My mistake. People on the Mexican side of the border deserve to get all the services the United States government provides. They do live in close proximity, afterall.

                Oh, and lets extend unemployment benefits to reach all the canadians that live within 30 miles of the border. They are almost in America, you know.

                What fucking role does proximity play? You’re in or you’re out, dumbass.

          2. “but everyone expects cities to do all sorts of things.”

            Like protect people’s persons and property. Nutty I grant you.

            1. Only those people who live within that city and pay its taxes, which this guy did NOT.

              A little fact that the trolls and wailers here continue to ignore, avoid, or fail to grasp.

            2. As mentioned already the expectation translated outside of the city. Why? Because people expect cities (more appropriately government) to do all sorts of things. Nothing like a sense of entitlement biting you in the ass. Which wouldn’t occur if the sense of entitlement wasn’t there, and the incentive to bargain was. Which would happen when?

              1. “Because people expect cities (more appropriately government) to do all sorts of things.”

                When you live in their jurisdiction.

      2. The problem is it’s a city, that has no profit motive (because they are stupid) and would rather wield power in the face of citizens than come to some equilibrium agreement where all parties are satisfied. The city knows it can just force money from someone else so why worry about keeping a good image or dealing with those it deems unworthy?

        1. How about an equilibrium agreement in which the guy who wants the fire department to put out his house fire pays the $6.25 a month it would take to make that happen?

          1. If that’s the agreement then fine. The point is he is contracting with government who has motives outside of profit or the motive for profit is diminished by the ability to coerce income. Therefore, the government has no need to bargain and an incentive to strong-arm people. Where as in a contract with a private party a private department would have a stronger incentive to bargain (rather than strong arm) to generate more income and maintain appearances with the firms market. The story isn’t a success of free market ideas, it’s an excellent example of what incentives government has for action or inaction.

            Like I said if it was a private company required to generate income a deal would have been struck or the company would risk loosing it’s customers to a competitor.

            1. Before they made this rule, 63% of fire calls in Obion County, Tennessee were made for rural areas that were not paying taxes for those fire departments. They could not afford it, so decided to charge a $75 fee to opt-in to fire protection. Sounds reasonable to me.


              1. You need a freakin’ map to find the point. Don’t you?

            2. hmm, I’m betting $75 was far from strong-arming, but likely a deal for the “consumer.”

              1. Jesus did you pay attention in your public policy classes for your PhD. I know they were all mathy and shit, but for fuck’s sake.

                The strong arm is the refusal to take action because the government has no incentive to keep its people happy (or that incentive is very small in proportion to others.) Add to that you making my argument that the $75 is a deal, (why, because it’s federally subsidized!) and the government has zero reason to bargain and every reason to be an evil prick to get the rest of the people to fall in line and pay $75. (which is again a deal because it’s subsidized so odds are the $75 is just icing on a budget cake)

                Seriously you must have slept through public policy classes or they weren’t required.

                1. That is what you call and ad hom sandwich.

                2. “the government has no incentive to keep its people happy (or that incentive is very small in proportion to others.)”

                  If I lived in the jurisdiction of this gov. I’d be pretty happy. They refused to let someone who does not pay for their services receive the services at my expense.

                  The government has no incentive to keep people outside their jurisdiction happy.

                  1. Of course you’re happy. Ignorance is bliss.

        2. This guy didn’t live in town. The people who live in town pay taxes to support the fire department, and the whole town receives protection. The department was trying to get more money by offering to provide service to the surrounding rural areas where they normally did not in exchange for a small fee.

      3. The problem is he tried to pay the cost of services when the fire started and was rebuffed.

        The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn’t do anything to stop his house from burning.

        1. If you could do that, then no one would pay the fee.

          If there were no public fire departments, and if everyone was responsible for contracting to secure fire protection with private companies, there would be some people who wouldn’t do it. They then would be up Shit Creek when their house caught on fire. But it would be their own fault.

          This guy is in the same moral position.

          The only thing that could possibly be said in his defense is that the ubiquity of public fire protection may lead some people to refuse to believe that their house is not under protection of some sort. Those people would not realize that the risk they’re running. But that doesn’t seem to be the case in this particular instance; he knew he had no protection, was offered protection for a nominal fee, and consciously decided not to pay the fee.

          1. That’s wrong. The pricing can be set to deter people from not paying the monthly fee. Just like all other penalty pricing. This is not uncommon at all and is probably in at least half of the service agreements you currently use.

            Cell plans, bank agreements, mortgages, car loans, student loans, most loans or payment plans

          2. The fee is insurance. If it costs $15K for service at the time of the fire vs. $75 a year, most people will pay the $75 annually.

            This would be like someone not paying for health insurance telling the hospital that he’ll pay full freight to treat his diabetes and the hospital saying, “Sorry buddy, you didn’t pay for the insurance.”

            1. Well, sure. The fire department could have anticipated that this situation would come up, and could have devised a way to have product pricing that would enable people to sign up to pay for fire protection on the spot. But they didn’t choose to do that, and it’s not like anyone was going to assume the authority to negotiate that while the fire was happening.

              But complaining about that would be like me complaining if I get caught out in the rain, and no one has opened a business to helicopter out to me to provide me with an Instant Umbrella. Sometimes if you don’t plan ahead you won’t be able to buy the service you want before you get wet, because other people aren’t always ordering their affairs for your convenience.

            2. The difference is you can pay $75 for the protection of the fire department, or 6 figures to rebuild the home.

              Lets say, just for kicks, that the Fire Department agreed to accept money from him to put out the fire. Then the FD attempted to put out the fire, but the house was already too engrossed in flames and burnt down anyhow. How do you come up with a price to pay for that service?

              You can’t. You pay the 75 beforehand, and they’ll do everything they can to help in an emergency. If you don’t pay it, tough shit.

        2. Right, because the fire chief knew the chances of them actually getting paid by this dude after they put out the fire were slim and none.

          From what I’ve read, they made it pretty clear to all that they had no legal obligation to fight fires beyond the town limits, but if you wanted them to come out to your house, you could pay $75 up front. If you didn’t pay, you didn’t sign up for that service.

          Too many who are screaming about the outrage of this apparently fail to realize that the fire department was for the town, not the rural area where this guy lived. They didn’t have to offer their services out there to anyone at all. They extended the offer and this dude refused it. Then he expected them to render the offered service anyway.

        3. That’s not a problem, except for him.

          The fire department responded to a neighboring field fire. The equipment and manpower needed for that sort of incident is not the same as for a fully-involved housefire.

          They then contained the housefire until it burned out, which is not uncommon in a structure fire when no one’s life is at stake.

          It’s like arguing that, hey, you’re already here to change my windshield wipers, so you shouldn’t mind fixing the transmission, too.

    3. I think you are trying to offer this as an example of the failure of libertarianism, but I actually see it as a success.

      A man who knowingly took a foolish risk has lost and has suffered the consequences of his foolishness.


      It’s nice when you get to see morality in action.

      1. Three dogs and a cat either asphyxiated or were burned to death in the fire. How AWESOME would it have been if it were a human being?

        Morality in action.

        1. He took a calculated risk and lost. Happens every day. It’s a crying shame the animals had to suffer and pay the price for their master’s foolishness. For a mere $75, he could have had the fire department’s protection, but he assumed he could get a free ride. Meanwhile, his neighbors paid and their properties are fine.

          1. Yeah, that’s the second time you’ve said that. What if, as he claims, he just forgot? What if he did send payment and a clerical error left him off the list?

            The DERP in this thread is awe-inspiring. I do love watching libertardians squirm.

            1. What if, as he claims, he just forgot? What if he did send payment and a clerical error left him off the list?

              What if his check got sucked into a hyperbolic negative space wedgie and then into a blackhole vortex that spit it out in a galaxy far, far away!

              Good lord, you’re remarkeably stupid.

              If he forgot, then again, he’s living with the consequences of his actions. As for your “clerical error,” now you’re simply making shit up.

              How about you deal with the actual facts of the story instead of postulating and hypothesizing wild scenarios for which there is no evidence or factual support?

              I see nobody squirming here, other than the buttocks that shat you out.

              1. Dude, it is glorious how pathetic you are. I am loving this.

                1. Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Whatever helps you get through your day.

            2. Hey Libertardian, please just shut the fuck up. This site is called Reason, not Emoting.

              1. If you have to call yourself “Reason”, you’re clearly insecure about it.

                It’d be like all the posters here (myself excluded, of course) wearing a t-shirt that said “Huge Penis”.

            3. What if, as he claims, he just forgot?

              Let’s leave your excuses for not wiping your butt out of this.

            4. “What if he did send payment and a clerical error left him off the list?”

              Then he can petition the government to compensate for his loss. Not unlike when you pay your parking ticket, but the city thinks you didn’t and tows your car. You produce the receipt of having paid, and they pay to get your back from the tow company.

              Good luck with that, by the way.

              1. Produce the receipt that was in the house that burned down.

                Holy fuck, you people have no idea how fucking stupid you are. Jesus Christ.

                1. Produce the receipt that was in the house that burned down.

                  Holy fuck, you people have no idea how fucking stupid you are. Jesus Christ.

                  So if there’s a possibility of someone suffering a misfortune because of a misunderstanding or error, then the system itself is at fault?

                  That would mean that every criminal justice system of any kind everywhere for all history is similarly morally falsified. I’m sure somewhere or other there’s someone in prison who wouldn’t be there if he could just have found the scrap of paper that exonerated him.

                  If you’re staying awake at night worried that the receipts in your house will burn, pay by check or CC instead of in cash.

            5. What if, as he claims, he just forgot?

              I don’t know why anyone would consider this a valid excuse. You don’t pay for whatever reason, you aren’t entitled to the services.

              In my misspent youth, I once forgot to pay my car insurance bill and then got into an accident (slid off the road in a snowstorm). I didn’t go whining to the insurance company that they should pay for the repairs anyway because I made an honest mistake; I coughed up the $1500 to get my car fixed.

            6. What if, as he claims, he just forgot? What if he did send payment and a clerical error left him off the list?

              Then the fire department would be liable for damages caused by their error, and would have to kick in at least some of the cost of rebuilding (not all, since some damage would have occurred before the FD could have put it out).

        2. You’re an adorable little troll.

          *pinches Libertardian’s cheeks*

          1. argumentum ad hominem

            1. There’s some saying about a pot and kettle, and some name calling between the two, but I’m not remembering it clearly.

            2. It’s acceptable when arguing with retards that have no point or argument.

            3. Also, that’s not ad hominem. It’s simply identifying you as a troll. Which you so clearly are.

        3. The firefighters would have gone in if there were human life at stake in the house.

          1. From the limited information it looks like 911 didn’t even respond to the call until the neighbors property was involved. The 911 operator may have asked about people inside before responding, but that would have been a fairly large waste of time anyway.

            1. “Again, if the fire situation is life threatening, fire departments will respond. However, that was not the case with the fire in South Fulton Wednesday.”


              1. I read it. A statement about responding from the fire department and what happened here are not the same. What the article did say is that 911 was called and didn’t show up until another property was threatened.

                Like I said the operator most likely, since they always do, asked if anyone was injured or inside.

                1. clarification: not the same in the sense that the information is not given whether the gentleman was asked or responded about anyone being in danger

                  (that was poorly worded above)

            2. And this shows how fucking retarded the city service is. The private fire company in California a few years ago put out the fire at an uninsured house to remove any chance of the insured house next door from taking damage. These idiots should have been at the scene to preemptively wet the field of the insured property owner.

        4. They died because a government refused to bargain. How fucking awesome is that.

          You fuckin’ moron.

          1. You should be able to buy health insurance after you’re already sick!

            1. Oh, just crashed my car, I better buy some car insurance so they will fix it!

              1. Yeah, I’m trying to figure out why this is so different from me trying to buy an umbrella policy while I’m being sued.

                I swear, I’ll pay the extra 200 bucks for every year prior to this one. It’ll be like I had this policy the whole time.

                Imagine offering that kind of payment plan (no payments until used!) for something like this.

            2. No but your using a false analogy. You can see the doctor after you are sick for a price. (oddly the price is usually lower than insurance pays) So, your argument is either a not so cleverly crafted straw-man or just a poor analogy. Sick people go to the doctor all the time and get care w/o insurance.

              You can also get your car fixed w/o insurance after the fact.

              Why not be able to pay more after the fact in this case? The technology existed when man could sign his name to paper. (that is if you are going to argue a time constraint)

              1. This is true. But the guy has no reasonable expectation that firefighters on the scene will have either the inclination or the ability to negotiate a fee for service while the fire is going on.

                1. Because the fire fighters are government agents. If they were not the incentive would exist. Like I said up thread, the issue is government v. private and not an example of pay for action libertarianism.

              2. “You can see the doctor after you are sick for a price.”

                He can rebuild his house after it burns down for a price.

                “You can also get your car fixed w/o insurance after the fact.”

                He can get his house fixed after the fact, for a price.

                1. Jesus you aren’t very good with analogies are you?

                  Do you understand how insurance works? First you argue that it is some how cheating the system and I point out that in your analogies the ability to repair either person or car still existed. Now you’re trying to do exactly what I did outside the time frame of repair. I’m beginning to think you don’t get how straw-men and analogies work. Is the chin strap on your helmet too tight? Or maybe the bib is cutting off circulation to your brain.

                  1. Lets go through this slowly.

                    If you don’t have insurance (haven’t paid a fee to be protected in the event of pre-defined circumstances) you can opt to pay the full price for repair after the fact, but can not opt to buy the protection service after the fact.

                    If you haven’t paid for protection from fires (haven’t paid a fee to be protected in the event of pre-defined circumstances) you can pay the full price for repairs, but can not opt to buy the protection after the fact.

                    “‘outside the time frame of repair.”

                    If your car is totaled and you don’t have insurance, you have to pay the full price for a new car.

                    This is very simple.

                    1. That’s fine, but you realize that I’m discussing the fact that a private company would have an incentive to bargain where as a public entity doesn’t.

                      Slow enough for you?

                      Again at totaled care is the wrong analogy. A car with damage would be the proper analogy since the house was in the process of becoming totaled.

                      Another shitty analogy or straw-man shot in the ass.

              3. Why not be able to pay more after the fact in this case? The technology existed when man could sign his name to paper.

                Nothing was stopping him from going around the neighborhood and buying hoses and offering to pay his neighbors to help fight the fire.

                What you’re demanding is that the town firefighters make their services available even if they don’t want to.

                1. Except the lack of specialized equipment. Kinda makes a difference.

            3. You should be able to get treated for full price if you don’t have insurance.

              1. He can pay a builder to rebuild the house, for full price.

              2. You should be able to get treated for full price if you don’t have insurance.

                Even if the doctor doesn’t want to treat you? I didn’t know libertarians were into slavery. (Especially since there’s often no reason to believe the customer is going to pay you afterward).

        5. “How AWESOME would it have been if it were a human being?”

          Or a kid, man THAT would have taught that kid a lesson (don’t be born to a cheapskate!)!

          1. The child would have been an innocent victim. The moral blame would have fallen on the parent. Assuming the parent survived the fire, I would have no problem with charges of criminal negligence or manslaughter being brought against the parent.

            The fact that parents act negligently in the care of their children and need to be criminally punished is no more an argument against libertarianism than the fact that muggers commit robberies and have to be punished.

          2. I suppose you would have preferred it if the town had a stripped-down fire department, funded on the meager tax base inside the town itself, that was not capable of responding to fires as quickly and had worse equipment and training.

            Then the guy’s neighbor’s house would have burned too. Hooray for equality!

        6. Actually, yes.

          If it is in fact the case that the deaths of those animals is a moral crime of some sort [and I’m perfectly willing to entertain the notion that it is] then it’s really quite easy to assign moral blame for those deaths. It lies squarely on the homeowner, 100%, no exceptions, no 1% blame anywhere else. It’s all on him.

          So all the moral issues here are neatly and easily tied up. Without reference to any libertarian.

          1. The problem being the guy tried to reach an agreement after realizing the mistake. That has to have some moral weight to it.

            1. Shit! I didn’t buy health insurance, and got diagnosed with an expensive illness!

              I realize my mistake! You have a moral duty to give me the insurance now!

              1. Still a poor straw-man or shitty analogy.

                Moving the argument a few spaces down didn’t make it any better.

                1. I saw this analogy used against the absurdity of forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing medical conditions and think it is quite good. Firefighting insurance being purchased after or during a fire is a pre-existing condition. Other than saying, bad argument, bad argument, can you say why?

                  1. Correctly formed Doctor Analogy: You don’t have insurance. You get sick. You go to a doctor and say you’ll pay. Doctor says “no, you should have bought insurance”. You say “but I have the money”. Doctor says “tough crap, I’m a jerk”. Now the doctor has a right to be a jerk. But he is still a jerk. If there was a profit motive for doctor, it’s less likely he’d be a jerk.

                    1. Actual correctly formed Doctor Analogy: You can afford health insurance. You have been repeatedly offered insurance, and turned it down each time. You’ve made statements that if you’re sick, you believe you can get the doctor to treat you for free, even though the doctor has warned you in writing that he won’t treat you in that case. You get sick and go to a doctor and promise to pay ANYTHING to get treated. The doctor knows you are a deadbeat, and won’t pay the bill if he sends it to you, and refuses to treat you.

                    2. We don’t know homeowner was a deadbeat.

                      And the fireman weren’t refusing service because they thought he wouldn’t be able to make good on his promise to pay. They refused to put out the fire because that was the policy, and they were just following orders.

        7. Imagine “moral” firefighters were severely injured or killed fighting this fire. Would the Cranicks still pay “whatever the cost”?

        8. Apparently the homeowner loved his pets so much that he didn’t think they were worth $75 a year. AWESOME.

          If there had been people in the home then I guarantee the firefighters would have risked their lives to save them if at all possible.

          But should they be required to risk their lives to save pets, or save an empty building? And in doing so divert resources that might be required to save lives elsewhere? No.

    4. If the government didn’t have a monopoly on firefighting, perhaps he would have had more options.

      1. Does the government have a monopoly in law or merely in fact? (Real question: I have no idea.)

        You’d have a point here if there was an organization that wanted to sell Mr. Cranick fire fighting services for less than the city was offering but they were prevented by law from doing so. Likewise if there was a group willing to negotiate a on-the-spot arrangement to fight the fire that was stymied by a law.

        If the monopoly in place was simply a matter of no one being able or willing to compete, than this isn’t a very strong argument.

        1. I think you can still argue this from a “crowding out” kind of angle, even without above conditions being met.

          1. Yes, at least most of the time.

            But here we are talking about a place where the government provision is optional (indeed, all the squawking seems to be over optional actually meaning you don’t get it automatically…). Which may change things.

            But crowding out issues are real, and they are why I said the argument wasn’t strong, rather than claiming there was no argument.

        2. How can you compete with the government when government has practically unlimited resources? I suppose it’s easier to compete with a small, local government than with the federal or state government.

          1. It depends. FedEx, UPS and DHL are doing fine competing with the US Post in package delivery. They are not competing in “regular” mail, because they are legally barred from doing so, which puts the difference in stark contrast.

            Private schools manage to attract costumers even those those folks are required to pay for the very public school that they’re fleeing.

            The situation with the Tennessee fire response sounds like the fire department is getting subsidized (for the county residents), which would render a competing private entity a non-starter, but would also mean that Mr. Cranick turned down a better deal then he could have expected from a private group.

            So my question is, do was Mr. Cranick barred from getting a better deal from a private entity. (Note that better might not only mean a low subscription cost: having the infrastructure and willingness to negotiate as his house burned would be a step up on the city service…) If so, was that de jure, or was it due to taxpayer subsidized crowding out? Either one is a rotten deal for Mr. Cranick, but they suggest different solutions.

  6. “Service fee for inaction. Leftards screech!”


    1. Er, it’s pretty standard to get inaction when you don’t pay for a service dude. Try not paying for dinner and seeing how much food you are served…

      1. Actually, in many restaurants you’d be served as much food as someone who pays *after the service* — but I agree with your point.

      2. Oh, so you *do* get it. So, you’re just being a dishonest prick for a cheap thrill. Gotcha.

  7. Did McMahon learn what the minimum wage is yet?

    Next in Adventures of Corporate Titans Casting Themselves As Populist Spokespersons: The Price of a Gallon of Milk!

    1. It would be fun to be a candidate and get the gallon of milk price question.

      I’d say something like, “Well, you know, I only buy organic lowfat milk, which is $3.99 a half gallon. I don’t know what it costs for ‘regular’ milk.”

      And then I would get to watch Pat Buchanan’s head pop off his shoulders.

      1. I couldn’t answer that question. But I hate grocery shopping and my wife doesn’t. Do I get a monocle and top hat and membership of the super elite evil capitalist club now? I really don’t see the point of that question. What is so fucking special about a gallon of milk?

        1. It’s a common staple of ordinary life. Those who are unaware of it might be so far removed from said life as to maybe not know what folks living that life might need.

          Aren’t you the one that bitches aboout “out of touch elitists” 23 hours a day John?

          1. Or those who don’t know have wives or husbands who do the grocery shopping. Either I am a member of the out of touch super elite or you are an idiot. I am betting on the latter.

            1. I’m betting it’s more like you are the idiot…If a Democrat admitted to not knowing the price of milk or the minimum wage you’d be frothing at the mouth (more than usual).

              1. And If I did, I would be being a partisan hack like you are being now. It is a stupid question as BSR explains clearly below.

          2. Milk is a common staple of ordinary life if you’re a kid, maybe. I haven’t drunk cow’s milk in years, other than a little splash of half-and-half in my morning coffee.

            And I have no clue how much a gallon of milk or loaf of bread costs, because my wife does all the grocery shopping.

            It’s absurdly stupid to expect a political candidate to know the average retail price of milk or bread. I’d rather inquire as to his or her philosophy towards the constitutional limits of government.

            1. I buy that stuff & I still couldn’t tell you how much it costs. All I could give you is a ballpark guess. I doubt the reporter knew before he decided to ask the question.

              1. Dude, the milk question is a reference to a Bush I gaffe way back in a debate in 92, it was a citizen that asked the question btw. The McMahon minimum wage is far worse imo: Linda has taken a stand on the minimum wage when she admittedly doesn’t know wtf it is.

                1. The arguments against it are the same and just as valid regardless of what the actual wage rate is. And you have by omission as much as admitted you don’t know what it is either. Are you arguments for it now invalid?

                2. Oh, I totally remember the Bush “controversy” when he not only didn’t know how much milk or bread cost, but also was amazed at a supermarket checkout scanner. Remember, I’m older than most of the people here? I voted in that election, when apparently a lot of the people here were in grade school or something.

                  It was a stupid question then, made by a partisan shill whose purpose was to make Bush appear elitist and out of touch, and it’s still a stupid question.

                  1. Yes, his amazement at the supermarket scanner, which was a six or seven year old technology at that point, was more of an “out of touch” signal than the milk price thing.

                    It basically broadcast “I’ve been living like a head of state for so long I don’t know things literally everyone else knows”.

                    1. In fairness to Bush I, he had been VP for eight years. They didn’t have scanners in 1980. Once he was VP, the secret service was never going to allow him to go grocery shopping. How was he supposed to know that the technology had changed?

                    2. “Yes, his amazement at the supermarket scanner, which was a six or seven year old technology at that point, was more of an “out of touch” signal than the milk price thing.”

                      It didn’t happen that way:


                    3. I didn’t bother to check Snopes: is this where they tore up a barcode and it still scanned and that’s when Bush expressed amazement?

                3. Yeah, I got that it was reference to Bush I. I thought it was a stupid gotcha question back then & I still think it’s stupid. I agree with you on McMahon. If you are going to make a stand on minium wage being to high you should know how high it is.

                4. You don’t need to know the level of the miniumum wage to know that is a law against jobs. And Unconstitutional.

          3. Some of us just don’t buy milk that often.

          4. It’s a common staple of ordinary life. Those who are unaware of it might be so far removed from said life as to maybe not know what folks living that life might need fucking lactose intolerant.

        2. Wouldn’t an acceptable answer be, “You know my wife buys the milk in our family so I’m not sure about the exact price but I do know a case of Miller High Life goes for about $16”?

          Another acceptable response would be “I’m not sure, but it is too much. Cut the subsidies to those welfare dairy queens and it would be cheaper.”

      2. My answer to “what is the miniumum wage”:

        The arbitrary price at which the federeal goverment has unconstitutionaly decided that if you get a job for below that, they will come steal shit from the guy who gave you a job, and if he tries to protect his stuff, they’ll lock him in a cage, and if he resists that they’ll just fucking kill him.

    2. Do you know what it is without googling it? I don’t. I bet most people couldn’t tell you that. But the vast majority of the country doesn’t make minimum wage. Only teenagers and poor people get screwed by the minimum wage laws MNG.

      Beyond that, I would expect you to be surprised that she doesn’t know the minimum wage. In your world, don’t all corporate titans pay their employees the minimum wage. That is until they can get rid of it in which case they will pay their employees in lumps of coal. She did forget her monocle and top hat last night. So maybe that threw her off a bit.

      1. Yeah, I’m guessing not knowing about a subject but nonetheless having a strong position on it is not going to be a turn-off for John. Shocking, I know!

        1. Oh. So you didn’t know the minimum wage either. I didn’t think you would. But you have no problems acting like someone else not knowing it is a big deal.

          1. Er, yes I know the minimum wage. Unlike you I find knowing about things before voicing a strong opinion about them to be a good thing…

            I actually don’t mind someone not knowing about the minimum wage if they have no strong opinion about it, or even someone being theoretically opposed to any minimum wage. But McMahon has taken a specific position on this, that the current minimum wage needs to be lower than it currently it is. Which…she doesn’t know…

            1. See fluffy’s comment below. The arguments are the same whether it is six dollars or eight dollars. I could give you a round figure guess. I pretty sure it is up around eight dollars these days. The arguments for and against it are the same whether it is five or thirteen dollars.

              It is an idiotic partisan gotcha.

        2. Actually, the theoretical arguments for and against the minimum wage are valid regardless of the exact dollar amount of the wage [assuming it’s not set to a penny or something absurdly low].

          I’m sure there are plenty of European economists with strongly-held opinions on the minimum wage who don’t know to the penny what it currently is.

          Without googling, my guess is $8.25. But I don’t know what the minimum wage in France is, and I don’t need to know that to know that minimum wages are destructive of low-wage employment. You can perform the proof of that using algebraic terms and not using actual numbers at all.

          1. “Actually, the theoretical arguments for and against the minimum wage are valid regardless of the exact dollar amount of the wage”

            Granted, but she has not called for the elimination of the minimum wage.

            1. Googling reveals that the federal minimum is $7.25, but there are states with minimums that go up into the 8’s. A couple are at $8.25, so I get to deny that I made an error! HA!

              Is her position that it’s currently too high? If so, then yeah – I’ll grant that it’s stupid to have your position be that it’s too high if you can’t actually supply the figure when asked.

              1. Connecticut’s minimum wage is $8.25 an hour.

          2. Actually, the theoretical arguments for and against the minimum wage are valid regardless of the exact dollar amount of the wage [assuming it’s not set to a penny or something absurdly low].

            Not at all. If you believe that a false price control is wrong, it doesn’t matter what the number is. At some point, the market would or even already does, exceed the arbitrary number made up in Washington.

            The point which MNG can’t seem to digest is that it is simply impossible for a few hundred, well paid people in Washington to determine the price for labor for 300,000,000 people. If their number is too low, people will not work for that amount. If it is too high, people will not employ for that amount.

            Wouldn’t it be great if there was some way to combine all the people’s wisdom about cost of labor?! Some mechanism where the price of things is optimum for both buyer and seller? What makes MNG such a shit is the fact that the market does just that. Liberty itself is more than enough moral justification for the Free Market, the economic benefits are gravy.

            1. Actually, MNG has a point here. If you’re a statist-lite and say that you think there should be a minimum wage, but that it should be lower than the current one, and have no idea what that current minimum wage is, then you’re just spouting talking points and hoping no one will call you on it.

              Now, if you think it’s unconstitutional to have a minimum wage at all because it’s not an enumerated power, then not knowing what the current federal minimum wage is, is irrelevant.

    3. 99 cents per gallon at the Aldi, 78 cents per gallon at the recently opened H-E-B. Are you going to vote for me now?

      1. Holy Shit. That’s cheap.

        1. I love the Aldi.

          I like to walk through the aisles, saying, “Now, WHAT fucking brand of ketchup is this, exactly?”

          1. I think you mean “Catsup.”

      2. And if the price of milk double or tripled overnight, the overall sales of milk wouldn’t drop even one unit. Nobody can do without milk. No one would stop eating cereal or forgo the big glass of milk with cookies while watching Dancing With The Stars.

        1. “No one would stop eating cereal”

          We talking Cinnamon Toast Crunch? Cuz that shit is inelastic in my household.

        2. And don’t forget the milk enema genre at the local porn superstore.

          Hey, Ms. McMahon, how much for an Asian group lesbian blu-ray with uncensored genitalia?

          1. Way back when, in the dark days before the Internet, I was in a porn store, browsing the wares, and saw the title Shaved Asians peeking out of a magazine rack. Being a fan of hairless pudenda and of petite brunettes–and mightily intrigue by the possibility of combining the two–I stopped to peruse the periodical. Shaved Asian had shaved Asians all right… crotch, armpits, head, and eyebrows. My libido shuddered and I put the magazine back.

  8. Note that the poll did not list “none of the above,” in addition to the Dems and the Reps, as a legitimate choice.

    Replace every incumbent with a third-partier or independent.

  9. Leftists whine about the free rider problem; leftist whine when the free rider problem is solved.

    I think leftists just like to whine.

    1. I think you’re on to something here.

    2. Technically, you’re whining. About “leftists”.

      Question: if libertarians are NOT conservatives – if they are some kind of third option, why are “leftists” always their mortal enemies?

      1. Because the issue lies with leftists being retards?

        Since when is someone or something defined by the opposition to it?

        1. Oh, I’m sorry – I didn’t realize you were literally a retard. Now I feel bad.

      2. The lazy “gotcha” of the concern troll. Boring.

        1. I liked this fuckstick better when he called himself Concern Troll.

      3. Because, being supporters of freedom and liberty, libertarians are to the ‘right’ of leftists on the political spectrum. Duh.

        1. You have to believe that liberals don’t support freedom and liberty in order to feel better about yourself.

          How sad. You have my pity.

          1. You have my pity.

            Since you aren’t charging us a service fee for that, your pity has a value of zero.

          2. You have to believe that liberals don’t support freedom and liberty in order to feel better about yourself.

            And apparently you have to come here and feebly attempt to demonstrate your intellectual superiority over libertarians and tell them how much you pity them to feel better about yourself.

            1. Dude, your fucked-up ideology failed, and you’re damn right I’m calling you out on it.

              Live with your failure. I’m sure you’re used to it by now.

              1. I suppose that if in your universe you consider this incident to be a failure of a system based on freedom of contract and living with the consequences of one’s chosen actions, then your definition of failure is different than mine, and you apparently lack the intellectual capacity to fully understand the fundamental principles upon which such a system is based.

                Oh, and by the way, I really feel zero compuction or necessity whatsoever to live up to whatever you define as success or failure. Based on your comments, which clearly reflect your bitter, twisted and pathetic little existence, I am quite confident that I already have acheived far more success in my life, personal relationships and finances than you could ever hope to.

                Now run along and play like a good boy – the grown-ups have to get back to work to pay for this lovely and wonderful government that pathetic assholes like you have brought us.

                1. LOL, ideology fail

                  1. Shhhh. The grownups are talking.

          3. I don’t have to pretend that at all.

            They quite openly admit that they find any number of liberties to be trivial, or worthy of sacrifice, or “balancing” against “other interests”. What pretense is required?

          4. Sorry, but not supporting constraints on government power–and that is THE hallmark of today’s left–means that freedom and liberty are not your priorities. I do believe many on the left don’t understand that they’re crapping on their own freedoms by trying to increase government power, but that’s the case whether they understand it or not.

            The right sucks in its own special way, but it isn’t as necessarily statist as the left, philosophically speaking, anyway. The problem is that they’ve become equally as government-loving in practice.

            1. Pro
              I’d say the left today has some serious issues with freedom and liberty (“public health” matters [targeting cigs, salt, fat, etc], not opposing the WOD and WOT enough, etc., etc). But there is in the left an idea that liberty is the goal, not authority as traditional conservatism has stressed. The left is historically skeptical of government (they pushed for FOIA laws, limits on qualified immunity, and all those ACLU lawsuits to limit polic powers for example). It’s just that the left often is willing to make a “Faustian Bargain” with the government to limit what they see as the freedom limiting power of non-governmental institutions (community, church, family, etc). I realize the break with you guys comes in how much of a problem “social pressure” from these institutions really is in limiting freedom, and also whether the use of government’s coercive power to fight such social pressure is ever warranted and/or a good idea. It’s a debate worth having, but I really think the goals at least are the same…

              1. I understand what you’re saying, but I think you see my point: Faustian bargain indeed. How do those deals with Satan work out, anyway?

              2. But there is in the left an idea that liberty is the goal, not authority as traditional conservatism has stressed.

                You’re talking about the political situation in 1900, when the liberals were classical liberals. Today’s left doesn’t value any freedoms that don’t reside in the pelvic region.

              3. It’s just that the left often is willing to make a “Faustian Bargain” with the government to limit what they see as the freedom limiting power of non-governmental institutions (community, church, family, etc

                I truly believe that you do not see that the government intruding on the private structures you name is the actual limitation on freedom and liberty.

                One can change one’s community or church, one can leave one’s family. One cannot get away from the force that is government.

                There is no ‘faustian’ bargain here–the left pursues what is has always pursued–state control.

                The ‘faustian’ bargain is in their pretense at caring about individual civil liberties.

          5. PICKLED HERRING

            1 or 2 herrings (fresh)
            Onions, sliced or chopped
            2 tsp. mixed pickling spices (generous)
            2/3 c. sugar

            Add white vinegar to make 2 cups total of sugar and vinegar.
            Soak herrings overnight in cold water in cool place. Fillet fish by removing small bones and skin. Rinse and drain. Cut fillets into thin slices. Place in layers with onion and spices. Mix vinegar and sugar and pour over. (This should cover fish pieces.) Remove red peppers from spices.

            Fish will be completely pickled in about 2 weeks. However, many Scandinavian people prefer to eat the herring 3-4 hours after preparing. Place in refrigerator for storing.

          6. No need to pity. They don’t. Sad, but true.

            The societal structure they pursue requires control. Thus, any lip service they give to things like liberty and freedom are voiced solely to make their crop of useful idiots a bumper one.

            While the left had control of the Presidency, the Congress and the Senate–to a degree where Republican opposition was moot, did they not enact all those freedom loving, liberty embracing ideals they always prattle on with?

            Could it be because laws that actually enhance individual freedom and liberty are not on their agenda?

    3. FWIW, the TV clip notes that the policy was implemented in 1990. Two decades of whining?

      1. The same year Glenn Beck raped and killed a girl.

        1. Uh. Yeah…

          And have you been wearing a tin foil hat that entire time?

          1. If Glenn Beck didn’t rape and kill a girl in 1990, why hasn’t he denied it? Can you prove Glenn Beck didn’t rape and kill a girl in 1990?

            1. Can you prove you didn’t have a miniature horse fuck you in the ass in 2002?

              1. So you’re on Paladino’s e-mail list, eh?

                I had a feeling you were a pervert/racist. Thanks for confirming what everyone suspects about you.

                1. I have no idea who this Paladino person is, but evidently you are quite familiar with him/her/it.

                  And you’ve done an excellent job of confirming everyone’s suspicions that you are a weasly little pathetic fuckstain oozing from a rancid cunt.

                  1. LOL, life fail

    4. Conservatives whine to. If there had been a person in the house or even a pet, I would say the fire department should have acted. But there wasn’t. It was that guy’s fault for not paying. It is property not lives. He has fire insurance.

      1. Three dogs and a cat in the house died. Oops.

        1. Yes, indeed – it was the owner’s “oops” that caused his pets’ deaths.

        2. Really? They should have saved the pets. But why the hell didn’t that idiot get his pets out? Do you have a link for a text story on this rather than the stupid video that Reason linked to?

          1. The guy was interviewed on Olbermann’s show last night and confirmed that their pets died.

          2. OK, no set up here, but if they should have saved the pets, then who should have paid for that saving? Let’s say the goofball could not pay.

            1. Because sometimes morality outweighs moral hazard. Clearly, there is an interest in making sure that people pay the fee. But that interest doesn’t outweigh the morality of saving the life of the animal or a person.

              Take the pet issue out of it, Suppose there had been a person in there. The morality of saving the life outweighs the moral imperative that people not get free services. So in that case, I would say the department should save the life. But after that is done, let the place burn down. By not paying the fine, they put their property at risk. But it should not have put their lives at risk.

              1. John,

                You’re right that it’s a moral issue, but you’re wrong on the moral calculus.

                The guy’s failure to provide for an easily forseeable circumstance created the risk. The moral blame here has to begin and end with him.

                Basically, you’re claiming that even though the moral blame for the event belongs to the property owner, onlookers have a moral duty to correct his mistake, or they also become tangled up in the moral blame for what happens. And once you make that claim, the entire leftist project is justified.

                And no, libertardian, I’m actually not monetizing everything. Do you think I care about the 75 bucks as money, or in terms of its purchasing power? My primary concern here is the proper assignment of moral blame. And, as an extension of that, seeing to it that the laws of our society conform to the proper assignment of moral blame. Because laws that assign moral blame to the wrong persons are an affront to justice.

                1. Fluffy,

                  But I think you have a moral duty to save someone’s life if you can. If put a couple of weights on the ankles of a five year old girl and throw her in the deep end of a pool, I am morally responsible for her death. But if you stand around and watch me do it and let her drown even though you have the ability to save her, you bear some moral responsibility yourself.

                  1. I think it would be morally praiseworthy to intervene, but that the failure to intervene creates no moral blame.

                    If the firefighters had chosen to bust in and save the guy’s pets, it would have been a noble act. But it would have been noble precisely because they were under absolutely no obligation to do it and had no duty to do it.

                    1. Fluffy,

                      You are confusing morality with the law. Just because you don’t have a legal duty to do something, doesn’t mean you don’t have a moral duty to do it. If the firefighters had stayed outside and watched someone die, they would have been immoral assholes even though they would not have been criminals.

                    2. I’m not so sure they do not have a duty to rescue pets. I have to agree with John. The moral issue puts life before money, it’s not about responsibility or blame. They can discuss blame after the lives are saved.

                  2. I’m pretty sure the morally correct thing would be to beat you unconscience before you did the deed, or failing that brain you with a planter immediately after and then dive in after the kid.

                    Just saying.

              2. Clearly, there is an interest in making sure that people pay the fee. But that interest doesn’t outweigh the morality of saving the life of the animal or a person.

                You don’t seem to realize that saving the pets doesn’t involve simply pushing a button; the firefighters would have been putting their own lives at risk. And their policy is to rescue trapped people from structures even if the owner hasn’t paid.

                If the fire wasn’t life-threatening, the guy would have been able to get his own pets out.

                1. “”You don’t seem to realize that saving the pets doesn’t involve simply pushing a button; the firefighters would have been putting their own lives at risk””

                  If you don’t want to risk your life running into a burning building, don’t be a firefighter.

            2. The guy offered to pay for everything after the fact.

              Do you see yet what happens to you when you monetize everything? Jesus, Ayn Rand fucked you people up.

              1. “The guy offered to pay for everything after the fact.”

                So what? That doesn’t eliminate the moral hazard of him not paying. And further read my post you fucking moron. I said that the morality of savings someone’s life is great than the moral hazard of paying the fee. If a life had been at stake, they should have acted regardless. But not for property. Property is not life. So I am actually doing the opposite of monetizing this. I am anything but an Objectivist dipshit.

                1. Should they be compensated for their time and effort in saving the hypothetical life? By whom? I grant the owner if he was solvent, but let’s say he isn’t. OK to pay from a generally collected tax fund?

              2. Chicken Chow Mein

                3 ounces dried chuka soba noodles, or other Chinese egg noodles
                1/4 cup, plus 2 tablespoons peanut oil
                Kosher salt
                1/2 cup chicken broth, homemade or low-sodium canned
                3 tablespoons oyster sauce
                1 tablespoon dark soy sauce, plus more for the table
                2 teaspoons cornstarch
                1 teaspoon sugar
                1 boneless, skinless chicken breast (about 6 ounces), cut into thin 2-inch-long strips
                1 teaspoon dark Asian sesame oil
                1 heaping tablespoon minced peeled fresh ginger
                3 cloves garlic, minced
                1 scallion, white and green minced
                Freshly ground black pepper
                1/2 medium yellow onion, thinly sliced
                1 stalk celery, thinly sliced on the diagonal
                10 dried shittake mushrooms, rehydrated, drained, and thinly sliced
                1/3 cup thinly sliced canned water chestnuts
                6 ounces fresh mung bean sprouts
                3 cups cooked white rice, hot
                Boil the noodles according to package instructions. Drain in a colander in the sink and rinse under cold running water. Shake the colander to drain off excess water and pat the noodles dry with a towel.

                Heat 1/4 cup of the peanut oil in a large seasoned or non-stick skillet over high heat. Add the noodles, spreading them out to evenly cover the skillet, and fry, turning once, until golden brown and crispy, about 8 minutes. (Break the noodles up, by stirring, near the end of the cooking). Transfer noodles to a paper towel-lined plate and season with salt to taste. Set aside. Discard any excess oil and wipe out the pan.

                Whisk together the chicken broth, oyster sauce, soy sauce, cornstarch, and sugar in a small bowl, and set aside. Season the chicken with the dark sesame oil, salt, and pepper, and set aside.

                Heat the skillet over high heat. Heat the remaining 2 tablespoons peanut oil until very hot. Add the ginger, garlic, and scallion and stir-fry, until fragrant, about 30 seconds. Add the chicken and stir-fry, until lightly browned, about 1 1/2 minutes. Add the onion, celery, and mushrooms and stir-fry, until crisp-tender, about 2 minutes. Add the water chestnuts and spread the ingredients to the outside of the pan to form a well in the center. Pour the chicken broth mixture into the well, bring to a boil, and stir to coat the chow mein mixture. Stir in the bean sprouts and remove from the heat. Season generously to taste with pepper.

                Transfer chicken chow mein to a warm platter and top with the fried noodles. Serve immediately with rice. Pass more soy sauce at the table.

          3. Human beings should have risked their lives to save household pets? Really?

          4. Why should they have saved the pets? What if one of the firefighters had gone in to get the stupid cat and died in the process? I think a human life is worth infinitely more than a few housepets.

            1. The point is, fighting the fire might’ve saved the pets, dipshit. Goddammit, the Dumbfuckistan here is incredible.

              1. It might also have killed a firefighter or two, asswipe.

      2. If I was his insurance, I’d deny him his coverage. Not paying $75 a year for fire protection is stupidity on the level of negligence.

        Too bad for the pets, they are pretty much the only ones I have any sympathy for in the whole story.

        1. Not paying $75 a year for fire protection is stupidity on the level of negligence.


          Too bad for the pets, they are pretty much the only ones I have any sympathy for in the whole story.

          AND ^THIS^

        2. I agree. It is a mad level of negligence.

        3. If I was his insurance, I’d deny him his coverage. Not paying $75 a year for fire protection is stupidity on the level of negligence.

          The insurer already knew his house was in an area with no guaranteed fire protection, so that was probably already factored into his premium.

        4. Too bad for the pets, they are pretty much the only ones I have any sympathy for in the whole story.

          The pets are surely the real victims here.

          Oddly, though, I have sympathy for Mr. Cranick, too. Not enough to suggest that he’s owed anything or that he should get any special help with the consequences of this domestic disaster. But a little.

          Try to put yourself in the poor bastard’s place: there he is–cell phone in hand–trying to wrap his head around “no tickee, no truckee” while the flames consume the bulk of his worldly possessions.

          Leave aside his lazy boy and play station or what ever his luxuries were, the house probably contains some irreplaceable tokens of people now dead and other emotionally important trifles.

          The pets are missing, presumed, dead. He want to do something about it, but can’t decide what.

          I’m sure he’s angry, but also bewildered and devastated. And if he has the slightest hint of an adult worldview, he has a huge, heavy knot in his stomach because he knows that this is at least partly his own damn fault.

          Bad. Very, very bad.

          One hopes that his church and/or the neighbors will come through with some food, clothes, blankets, and basic household chattels to cover his immediate needs.

    1. Only when they vote in highly educated illiterate clowns will they truly be gaining.

    2. And to what party does the illiterate clown belong?

    3. [Tiririca caught the attention of disillusioned voters by asking for their support with the humorous slogan: “It can’t get any worse” and a promise to do nothing more in Congress than report back to them on how politicians spend their time.
      “What does a congressman do? The truth is I don’t know, but vote for me and I’ll tell you,” the 45-year-old said in his campaign advertisements.]

      Actually, he doesn’t sound that bad.

      1. Mr. President, we must not allow… an Illiterate Legislative Clown gap!!!

  10. Georgia DOT Sells Ad Space on Equipment, Employees


    Next stop: Secretary of State, brought to you by Carl’s Jr.

    1. Look here, we don’t have Carl’s Jr.; like all good Southerners we have Hardee’s.

    1. This thing is very much worth the read. Or at least a skim; her sexual conquests are quite meticulously noted.

      I’m upset that I didn’t get laid more in college. Sigh.

  11. I find it amusing that when an elderly couple’s home burns down the non-libertarians here are doing a fucking victory dance, shows your true colors. The libertarians are offering solutions, which annoys the red/blue retards.

    Also could we have a show of hands as to who thinks this municipal fee was thought up by libertarians. Sounds like another fucking tax, if you ask me.


    1. Every single member of the city council of that town are Republicans, actually. Their “solution” obviously failed.

      1. You truly are a fucking idiot, aren’t you. Apparently you failed reading comprehension 101.

        The guy did NOT live in the town served by the fire department. He lived in an adjacent rural area that the fired dept did NOT serve. They extended an offer to those living out there. This dude declined the offer. Then he wanted the service, which he elected not to sign up for, for free.

        1. The guy says he didn’t decline; he just forgot to pay. He does have insurance on the house, so he’s likely telling the truth.

          And to answer your question – no, I am not a fucking idiot. I suppose common sense and decency would look idiotic to a fucking idiot, so maybe that’s why you asked the question.

          1. So if I “forget” to pay for a service that someone has no other obligation to provide, they should provide it anyway. Gotcha.

            1. And because he has a product that reimburses you for losses after the fact, “he ‘s likely telling the truth” about forgetting to pay for the fire service. Like I forget to purchase cell phone insurance or extended warranties on my electronics when these services are offered to me.

              1. And then when you drop your cell phone in the toilet and it gets ruined, you don’t expect them to provide you a new one for free, becuase you “meant” to pay for the insurance but “forgot to,” do you?

          2. I …. FORGOT!!

          3. You sure seem like a fucking idiot?

      2. Republican != Libertarian

        1. Yeah, it does. The only way you differ from Republicans is on social issues, which hardly ever get legislated on. You’re actually to the right of Republicans on fiscal issues, which is terrifying. So, OK – you’re not Republicans; you’re worse than Republicans.

          1. You’re actually to the right of Republicans on fiscal issues, which is terrifying.

            We feed off your fear.

            1. Again, you have my pity.

              1. I am returning herewith your pity, unused.

              2. I wipe my ass with your pity. BTW, it comes up short.

              3. You sure seem to have a lot of pity. Guess that means you’re pitiful.

          2. That’s silly. Bush was a spendaholic, who we strongly opposed. He expanded government power, with the connivance of the GOP-controlled Congress–something we also opposed. He and Congress also trashed civil liberties in the continuing WoD and in the response to 9/11. We no likee.

            All Republicans. All Republican acts. And most of those acts were and are opposed by libertarians.

            1. Again, libertarian think tanks slurp Republicans in every single way possible, so you are directly or indirectly responsible for George W. Bush. Congrats.

              1. Man, we sure are powerful. Like gods.

                1. FEAR THE MONOCLE!

                2. Then why don’t we smite this flyspeck of a troll?

                  1. Gods have worshipers to do such things.

              2. I don’t think you knwo what “directly” means.

      3. Not really. Your solution failed the entire town when they tried it. Their solution failed a few dumbasses. One is a big problem, the other will work itself out.

    2. Why couldn’t it have been thought up by Libertarians? I think the town was perfectly reasonable. Someone has to pay for the fire department. Why not the people who use it? The money doesn’t come for free. If you want fire protection, you ought to have to pay for it. Really this guy failed to pay a tax. Isn’t it the liberals who are always running around claiming it is un American not to want to pay taxes and anyone who doesn’t should move to Somalia? If anyone should be dancing a happy dance, it is liberals. Finally some cheapskate tax dodger got a taste of what life is like without government.

      1. I don’t think that libertarians would think up the idea that the fire department that you already pay for with municipal, state, and federal taxes should let your house burn down because you refused yet another tax. Sounds like extortion to me.

        Also, I don’t think that a private solution would work anything like what happened. Above hmmm made a suggestion on how a privately contracted fire dept would work. He basically said that if you don’t pay the fee then you are charged for the firefighters time, and I would add a profit for the company. No company would be stupid enough to let someone’s house burn down and miss an opportunity to make a profit.

        As to the little victory dance, let ’em have it. I just think that it shows that the “concern” for people we always hear about is a cover for power grubbing government fellators.

        Side note:

        My dad lives in a rural area and for years has been nickel and dimed to death with new taxes.

        Increased property taxes for a few unfarmable acres, garbage collection taxes, increased municipal water taxes, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried tacking on a police and fire tax. Oh yeah, he doesn’t have garbage collection or use municipal water/sewage. Well, if they let his house burn down it will make national news.

        1. The taxes were not paying for it. The fee is still a tax. If you think taxes are too high in that county, then fine. But that is a different issue. I don’t think can unilaterally tell the county, I don’t think your fire protection is worth that and then still expect them to come out and put your house fire out.

          Basically, you are arguing that because you dad thinks he is getting a raw deal from the townies, he should be able to get whatever services he wants from them at whatever price he thinks is fair. Well, the world doesn’t work like that. They city owns the fire trucks and they set the fees. If you don’t like it, vote for a different government or move.

          1. Christ on a fucking stick, John, you sound just like minge. Are you the same person?


            Look man, we losertarians are told all the time about how we need taxes to pay for fire departments or police, or whatever, then one day we need a new tax to pay for fire departments, or police departments, or whatever.

            Where the fuck is the money being paid in taxes going?

            What is the point of paying municipal land taxes for fire departments when fire departments aren’t covered by municipal land taxes? Why pay specifically for garbage removal when you don’t even have garbage disposal, at the risk of losing your home I might add?

            You are just another tax and spend republican, John.

            1. You don’t like the fee. And maybe you are right. Maybe the fee wasn’t fair. But that doesn’t give this guy a right to just decide not to pay it and then expect the fire department to still show up. That is really what you are saying.

              1. No, I don’t think that the fire department should show up for free, but why can’t you put the fire out and then charge for the service afterward. Hell, charge the guy $3000, that should cover it.

                Letting the house burn strikes me as showing others a “lesson”.

                Also, and I don’t know the local tax structure there, but wouldn’t this guy pay property taxes? Who do those go to and for what?

                1. The same reason an insurance company won’t replace my totaled vehicle if I buy a policy the day after the accident…because if they allowed me to do that then no one would buy insurance until after they had an accident. A “lesson”, if you will.

                  Most of the fire department’s budget is probably spent when they’re waiting to be called to put out a fire, not while they’re actually fighting one. So charging him for the cost of fighting the fire is unlikely to work. (Not to mention he might not pay them back)

                  1. No, Herr Ratfucker, you fail once again.

                    If you can’t think of why your insurance analogy is wrong, then I cannot help you.

                    I’ll give you a hint through a little platonic interrogation.

                    If you don’t like your insurance company or its rates what would you do?

                    If you risked not having full coverage insurance and had an accident would a mechanic fix your car if you were willing to pay?

                    If you live in a state with sales, gas, diesel, property, income, and inheritance taxes, on top of federal taxes on everything, that are supposed to go to vital government functions would you be happy paying for use fees on vital government functions as well?

                    We are being sold a goddamn bill of good here. We are told from the get go that we pay taxes for these services that cannot be done privately, then we get charged a fee…just like a private company would do.

                    And I already know your objection: “but those moneys don’t pay for that”. Well what fuck do they pay for, huh? The city gets no federal dollars, the state gets no federal dollars, the city gets no state dollars etc, etc, etc

                    The reason this gets me so mad is that it is the inevitable result of red/blue governance. We will pay a good chunk of our income to taxes and get not a goddamn thing in return. It’s entitlements and wars all the fucking way down.

                    Privatize EVERYTHING!

                2. And if this were a private company that were interested in making a profit, they would have had a mechanism in place for the homeowner to pay more afterward for the service. This was caused by government inflexibility, not a failure of free enterprise.

        2. the idea that the fire department that you already pay for with municipal, state, and federal taxes should let your house burn down because you refused yet another tax.

          The guy didn’t pay municipal taxes since he didn’t live in the municipality.

          There is no evidence that the fire dept received state or federal funding. If such evidence is presented, then this story takes a distinct turn…but not until then.

      2. Then add it to the tax structure instead of making it pay-per-use fee.

        Oh, I forgot – taxes are an oppressive tool that liberals use to make Ayn Rand cry.

        Except when people and property are destroyed when they fail to meet her standards, then she cackles from the grave.

        1. Apple Turnovers

          Ingredients [ View Metric ] == Dough ==
          1 cup sour cream, cold
          1/2 cup sugar
          3 cups unbleached all-purpose flour
          1 cup cake flour
          1 teaspoon salt
          1 1/2 cups unsalted butter (3-sticks), very cold, cut into small pieces
          == Filling ==
          4 large apples (I mix Jonagold & Granny Smith), peeled, cored, cut into small pieces (about 2 lbs)
          1/2 cup sugar
          1/2 teaspoon ground cinnamon
          1/4 teaspoon ground ginger
          1/4 teaspoon ground allspice
          Pinch of salt
          1/2 vanilla bean, split and scraped
          2 to 4 tablespoons fresh lemon juice
          1/4 cup unsalted butter (1/2-stick)
          == Egg Wash ==
          1 large egg beaten with 1 teaspoon of water
          Sanding sugar, for dusting (a coarse crystal baker’s sugar)
          Preparation – Flaky Apple Turnovers
          == To Make Dough ==

          In a small bowl, whisk together sour cream and sugar; set aside. In a large bowl, whisk together all-purpose flour, cake flour, and salt. Add butter pieces and toss until coated with flour. Cut butter in with pastry blender, two knives, or rub in with your fingertips until mixture forms an irregular coarse meal, with still visible pieces of butter. Don’t overworked dough. Make a well in center of mixture and add sour cream. Use a fork in a lifting and tossing motion to gently blend sour cream with flour mixture, mixing just until a rough, very soft and sticky dough is formed. (If mixture doesn’t come together or is at all dry, add a little more sour cream or cold water.) Divide dough in half and turn out each half onto a piece of plastic wrap. Using the plastic wrap, push and pat dough to form into rough rectangles. Wrap in plastic wrap and refrigerate for at least 1 hour, or up to 2 days.

          Remove a rested piece of dough from refrigerator and place on a lightly floured work surface. Sprinkle dough with as little flour as necessary to prevent sticking, and roll it out into a 9-by-18-inch rectangle about 1/2-inch thick (dimensions aren’t that important–a rough rectangle shape is fine). With one of the narrow edges facing you, do a sigle turn on the dough (a single turn creates 3 layers of dough). Fold the bottom third of the dough up over the middle third, then fold the top third down over the these two layers (so all 3 layers are stacked on top of each other). Wrap dough tightly in plastic wrap and refrigerate. Repeat process with second piece of dough. Refrigerate dough for at least 2 hours, or up to 2 day, or freeze for up to 1 month.

          == To Make Filling ==

          In a large bowl, whisk together sugar, cinnamon, ginger, allspice and salt. Add apples, vanilla seeds and lemon juice, and toss to coat. Melt butter in a large skillet over medium heat until it turns a light nutty color, about 6 to 8 minutes. Add apple mixture and saute until apples are slightly softened and caramelize, about 10 to 12 minutes. Transfer cooked apples to a baking sheet and let cool completely before forming turnovers. Cooled filling can be stored in refrigerator for up to 3 days.

          == To Make Turnovers ==

          Line two baking sheets with parchment paper or silicone mats.

          Remove a piece of dough from refrigerator and place on a lightly floured work surface. Roll out dough to a thickness of about 1/8- to 3/16-inch. Cut out 4 1/2-inch rounds with a large cutter. Repeat with second piece of dough. Gather up all of the scraps, press scaps together, wrap in plastic and refrigerate for 30 minutes, then reroll and cut out additional rounds, if desired. (I find that turnovers made from the scraps are still flaky and taste just as good!)

          Place 1 to 2 tablespoons of apples in center of each round. Using a pastry brush, apply a thin coat of water to lower half of each round. Fold top half of dough down over filling and gently press edges together. Seal edges by crimping with tines of fork. Use fork to poke steam vents into each turnover. (At this point, turnovers can be frozen, wrapped tightly in plastic wrap when firm, and stored in freezer for up to 1 month.) Using wide metal spatula, carefully transfer turnovers to prepared baking sheets, spacing them about 1-inch apart. Chill filled turnovers for 30 minutes, or cover with plastic and refrigerate up to 24 hours.

          Adjust oven racks to upper and lower third positions and preheat the oven to 400 degrees F.

          Using a pastry brush, apply a thin coat of egg wash to tops of turnovers and sprinkle with sanding sugar. Bake for 10 minutes. Rotate baking sheets from top to bottom and front and back, reduce oven temperature to 350 degrees F, and bake for another 10 to 15 minutes, or until puffed, firm to the touch, and golden brown. Using a wide metal spatula, transfer turnovers to wire rack to cool. Serve warm or at room temperature. Store in an airtight container for up to 24 hours.

          Makes 12 to 16 turnovers.

          Notes: Depending on thickness of dough and size of cutter, you should get from 12 to 16 turnovers. If you don’t want to bake them all, you can freeze assembled turnovers prior to baking. Frozen turnovers keep well in the freezer for up to 1 month. Bake frozen turnovers without defrosting — place frozen turnovers on a parchment lined baking sheet, brush tops with egg wash and sprinkle with sanding sugar, if desired, and bake in a 375 degree F oven adding a few minutes to the baking time.

          1. Who knew apple turnovers were so much work?

            1. He got the recipe from the Whitehouse.

    3. Thought up by libertarians? No. Libertarians don’t get elected.

      The situation in the town before the fee was that when the elderly couple’s house caught on fire they’d have no one to call. No one. Because that area has no fire department.

      So the elderly couple’s house would have burned down.

      The town came up with a plan to cover their surrounding rural area by asking people who wanted a fire department to pay a $75 annual fee. Seeing as these people did not pay the taxes that supported the fire department, this seemed like an ideal way to provide fire department coverage.

      The elderly couple decided that they could save their $75 because they probably wouldn’t need it and the fire department would put out a fire anyway.

      They were wrong.

      But, while everyone’s talking about this ‘libertarian example’, no one’s focusing on this–and the fire department would put out a fire anyway. This elderly couple expected that The State would take care of them even in the face of their deliberate non-payment. They proved the left’s contention that people won’t do things that are in their own interest if you don’t make them–and they expect full service no matter what.

      Are we that conditioned to the leftist worldview?

      1. Libertarians don’t elected (because everyone knows it’s a crackpot ideology and they can’t), but they do influence Republican policy with libertarian think tanks like the Cato Institute and the (*chuckles*) Reason Institute.

        1. I actually like Cato, their policy papers are nearly always food for thought, and they fairly consistently show themselves to be non-partisan. Ditto for Reason.

          1. You are not speaking to a thinking adult MNG.

      2. The situation before the fee was that the fire departments DID cover outside the town, and 63% of their calls came from people who were not paying (via taxes) for the service. They could not afford it, so they offered the service at a fee.

    4. Er, liberals have a “solution” too. Through a generally paid tax everyone’s house gets fire protection…

      1. Explain how the town legally could impose and enforce a tax on people who do not live within its legal limits?

        1. Pittsburgh charges taxes (purportedly for emergency services) to anyone who works within the city limits, even if they don’t live there.

          It’s even better for those of us who live in the city (thus paying city taxes) and still get slapped with the extra EMS tax because we work here too.

          1. You get double taxed by the city of Pittsburgh? I feel like a sucker sometimes for the 3% extra tax I pay because I choose to live in the city and do the reverse commute.

          2. Taxes on what? Income? Sales tax on purchases?

            I’m not familiar with the laws of PA or Pittsburgh on this point or the PA constitution, but I’d bet the city would never be able to impose a tax on real property that lies outside the city limits. It has no juridiction over it.

            Additionally, the taxes it collects for emergency services are for emergency services IN PITTSBURGH.

      2. Until the gold-plated public employee pensions squeeze out the fire fighting budget. Priorities you know.

      3. MNG,

        Paying for the fire dept via tax does not solve the problem–what about someone who refuses to pay their taxes? Does that person deserve all of the services provided by those who actually pay their taxes? Maybe, but he’d certainly deserve a severe fine/jail sentence as well.

        As a matter of fact, this particular county has voted several times against a tax to provide fire dept service for the county.

        1. “”As a matter of fact, this particular county has voted several times against a tax to provide fire dept service for the county.””

          No good deed goes unpunished? If the fire department didn’t agree to cover out of towners for a fee, the house would have burned down, possibly the neighborhood, then the county would have been put on the spot for providing service. Instead, the guys trying to do a good thing, for a reasonable price, look more like the bad guys.

    5. Actually it looks like an insurance premium.

  12. Re: the fire

    This is exactly how Obamacare is going to work, except the part where the fire department lets the house burn.

  13. Christine O’Donnell: “I Am Not A Witch”

    It’s 2010, people. No jetpacks, no flying cars, no cities on the Moon, no murderous android strippers… just a politician attempting to convince people she’s not in league with Satan.

    Hilarious and sad.

    1. We still have five years to invent hoverboards.


      I hope this makes you feel a little better.

      1. No, it doesn’t. Mostly because the first idiot that kills himself firing it off under an overpass or in his apartment will result in them being outlawed.

        I haz a sad.

    3. Viable jetpacks bitch:…..ack/14423/

      1. Yeah. I posted that yesterday. We also have FAA approved flying cars.

      2. Except that it’s not a jetpack at all. It’s a prop-pack.

    4. She didn’t deny being a Muslim. BURN HER!!

    5. Cue John:

      “B-But, Harry Reid! Bearded Marxist!”

  14. The best thing about the liberal anguish over letting a house burn is that no one talks about the risks to the firefighters. Let’s take a chance that a real person gets burnt or killed to save a dog owned by a dipshit that won’t cough up 75 bucks to cover his house.

    1. That is a good point. And fireman often get into it with property owners who want them to risk their life for property. The fireman make the proper point that they risk their lives to save other lives not property.

    2. We acknowledge the risk to the firefighters, we think everyone should pay taxes and the firefighters should be compensated for the risks they take from the tax.

      1. So you’re claiming that rural residents in the county should pay taxes to the city for city services? Or are you saying the city dwellers should pay taxes to cover free riders in rural areas?

    3. “”The best thing about the liberal anguish over letting a house burn is that no one talks about the risks to the firefighters. “”

      Firefighters get burned, and killed simply fighting fires when no life is inside the house. It comes with the job.

  15. 136 comments in 40 min?!?!?

    1. That’s what happens when I handle the extra links, bitch!

      1. Sorry, JL. I’m all wound up.

    2. You’re too late JT, too late, BWHA-HA-HA!

  16. October means Trollfest? at Red Lobster! Try our all-you-can-eat Fried Troll, or our savory Troll Scampy! All month long at Red Lobster!

  17. Japan goes down to zero, hmmm? What’s next, negative interest rates from the national bank?

    1. I don’t know how the hell a banking system can run for very long on zero interest.

    1. There are reasons why none of you lunatics know my name. Jesus, I can only imagine what Epi would do to me.

    2. This explains Episiarch’s relocation to Washington.

    3. Pussy.

    4. This is spectacular.

  18. You know why I hate leftists?

    Because we have a news item about some asshole who put a six-figure asset at risk to save 75 bucks, and EVEN THAT level of negligence is not sufficient, in their eyes, to justify a loss.

    Even when someone shows that level of negligence, it’s STILL our job to protect them from the consequences of their actions.

    He’s not at fault. We are.

    1. I shouted out, “Who burned the Cranick’s house?”

    2. It would appear you hate everything. Including yourself.

      So when a rare real-world example of libertarianism crashes and burns (literally), you have a tantrum?

      1. Dude, I told you above, I’m delighted with the outcome here.

        The only negative is what happened to the pets, but that’s on the owner’s conscience and not mine.

        What annoys me is not the event, but the shocking gall demonstrated by you, among others, in daring to try to describe this story as a failure of libertarianism.

        When bad consequences occur to people who deserve them, that’s a feature, not a bug.

        1. I’m delighted with the outcome here.

          It’ll be interesting to see if the Cranicks pursue this — dare I say it? — *all the way to the Supreme Court!*

        2. Dude, I told you above, I’m delighted with the outcome here.

          Not me Fluffy. I agree with you 99% of the time, but not on this one.

          I think this situation is the absurd conclusion to state extortion. Pay us taxes or we let your house burn down, now pay us some more taxes or we let your house burn down…

          1. RTFA – he was NOT paying any taxes for the fire department, because he did NOT live in the town served by that fire dept. He lived in an adjacent rural area and failed to pay the $75 fee they offered to provide service to him – outside of the town.

          2. What’s your alternative to having a city fire department charge a fee for responding to fires outside of the city’s taxing jurisdiction?

            1. This guy was obviously an idiot, I would rather he pay for his idiocy with cash rather than his home is all. The law could be written so that rural residents who don’t pay the fee will get an attempt to put the fire out, but at great expense ($3k-$5k maybe).

              Letting a home burn down whilst you watch strikes me as “See what happens when you don’t pay up!”.

              Digging a little deeper into this issue of taxes in general. We are told every fucking day on these here boards that the reason for state, local, municipal, gas, diesel, energy, road, corporate, etc, etc taxes is that we need things like fire departments.

              Now we have come to the point where we pay all of these taxes and have to pay for insurance/per use of government services. Doesn’t sound very libertarian to me. Maybe if this guy could choose not to pay for football stadiums he might instead pay for fire service.

              Also, would you feel differently if the guy had lived in city limits?

              1. My understanding is that these rural residents were offered the opportunity to buy in to the city’s fire service because they didn’t pay the city taxes which go partly toward funding the fire department.

                If the guy had lived in the city limits and been current on his city taxes I’d have a problem with the fire department’s watching his house burn down.

                I don’t think I’d have a problem if the city said “you can pay me now” at $75 per year or “you can pay me later” at a much higher price. I don’t know what that price would need to be in order to make sense for the city in terms of their expenses and likelihood of collection after the fact.

              2. The law could be written so that rural residents who don’t pay the fee will get an attempt to put the fire out, but at great expense ($3k-$5k maybe).

                Yes, the law could be written that way–but maybe the city council didn’t think anyone would be stupid enough to risk their six figure investment in order to have an extra $6.25 each month.

                Capitol l, you’re not seeming to get that the guy was not living in the city or paying taxes for the fire department–a situation that occurs with astonishing frequency in rural areas. He also wasn’t paying municipal taxes for a football stadium–he didn’t live in the municipality.

                It is possible to live outside a recognised town

          3. “I think this situation is the absurd conclusion to state extortion. Pay us taxes or we let your house burn down, now pay us some more taxes or we let your house burn down…”

            And yet some how that stupid Libertardian fuck sees this as an example of Libertarianism in action. What a fucking moron.

        3. When bad consequences occur to people who deserve them, that’s a feature, not a bug.

          Fuckin’ A.

          It’s called personal responsibility – an increasingly vanishing concept in today’s world and one totally alien to leftist and progressives, for whom I have nothing but contempt and loathing.

      2. “It would appear you hate everything. Including yourself.”

        Project much?

    3. Dude,

      I don’t think that there are any 6-figure assets in a rural west TN county. Maybe 5-figure if they had a nice air conditioner.

      And I’m not saying this to disparage the hillbillies, I love em to death. They made Memphis an extremely interesting place to live.

  19. So when a rare real-world example of libertarianism crashes and burns (literally)

    How is this a failure of libertarianism?

    1. Where is libertarianism being practiced, anyway?

      Oh, right Somalia. The location of the new Free State movement.

    2. Because libertarianism could only be counted a success if it was put into practice and no one ever suffered any negative consequence for being an idiot.

      If stupid people put their assets at risk and lose, that is a failure of libertarianism and it’s up to us to address it.

      1. The problem all of us face–left, right, libertarian, communist, indifferent–are the limitations and failings of human beings, particularly in large groups. The advantage that we have is that we aren’t so much trying to force humans to improve as to work around and counter our weaknesses. That’s what the Constitution was intended to do on the political side.

        We also have the advantage of not being insanely utopian in our thinking–we may have a society as an end goal, but our politics aren’t about forcing people to be better. We may want humanity to mature, but we don’t generally expect that we can make that happen from the top down. Persuasion and cooperation are our social tools, not compulsion. It’s a longer, harder road, but it’s the best and most ethical.

      2. IOW, our political philosophy is being defined by petulant children outside the movement with no real understanding of what it is they are talking about.

        I weep for our future.

      3. Because libertarianism could only be counted a success if it was put into practice and no one ever suffered any negative consequence for being an idiot.

        Indeed. After all, no cats or dogs have ever died in house fires in jurisdictions with the usual fire department setup.

    3. Seriously, the entire point of the theory is that people endure the consequences of their decisions. This guy bet the house and lost. Sad, but it’s his fault.

    4. Libertarians are now the only ones that believe in personal responsibility. Conservatives gave up on it under Bush. So, libertarianism failed to produce socialist results. Failure. Fail.

  20. So rather than continue to fight with brain-dead leftist over what happened, we should offer up libertarian solutions that would have addressed the issue before hand.

    As I see it, the company holding the note on the mortgage should have been collecting fees to cover fire protection as part of the escrow on the house (just like note holders require homeowners to cough up house insurance through escrow). Then the holder of the note could have contracted with the city to provide fire protection services.

    So yes, there really are people so dumb that they require a shepard to lead them around. But that does not mean that government is necessary to fill that rol.

    1. The holder of the note would require fire insurance on the property. That’s pretty standard.

      1. Fire insurance isn’t the same as emergency response services.

        There was a discussion awhile back on how most government services could be replaced by for-profit businesses. The liberal complaint is that people won’t pay for services until they actually need them, so you have to tax them. Well, it is also possible for the business world to force compliance as well. You don’t get your note unless you insure; and you don’t get your insurance unless you buy emergency response services. The fees for everything get collected by the holder of the note and distributed from escrow to the service providers.

        1. You still owe the bank the money regardless of any insurance coverage. Insurance just makes it easier for the bank to get their money back in case of a loss. The insurance requirement is a judgment call based on the mortgagee’s ability to pay in the case of a loss.

          1. I’m going to guess that most people that get a mortgage are not capable of paying off the balance out of pocket if the house burns down. So in the most common situation, the holder of the note requires coverage against loss of the asset (house, car, boat, whatever).

        2. I’d say the arrangement that was in place was pretty solid.

          An adjacement community’s fire department, to which he paid no taxes, offered fire response services for $75/year; a true bargain. He declined, knowing full well what the likely outcome would be, but yet persisted on engaging in wishful thinking as a contingency.

          I fear that no number of fiduciary requirements would have saved that fool. The holder of the note requirement also goes out the window when there is n note. He could have paid off the house years ago.

          1. Then it was legitimate for him to self-insure 😉

      2. Not necessarily. The insurance requirement is a function of credit history. I have no such requirement on my mortgage (I just re-read the Note to confirm).

        However, if you do have fire insurance, typically that’s rated based on the proximity to a fire station and a water source. Any company that would issue fire insurance without a requirement for fire coverage is retarded.

      3. Part of the cost of my homeowner’s insurance depends on how far I am from a fire station and how close I am to a hydrant. I wonder if this guy was paying premiums based on having a fire department that would respond at all and if his failure to pay the fee could end up costing him his insurance coverage as well.

        1. I’d say that’s highly likely.

          I’d also say that the left will point to that as yet another failure of libertarianism. Because whenever stupid people suffer the consequences of their actions, libertarians are at fault.

  21. I’m curious as to how much money those decrying the inaction of the fire department would be willing to give to rebuild the house of the so-called victim.

    1. Oh, Libertardian and his ilk are all in favor of the government taking tax money from “the rich” and using it to give grants or “redevelopment” money to guys like this.

      It’s the “fair” thing to do, after all.

      1. LOL, existence fail

        1. Yes, that’s right – I don’t exist.

          This is all just a figment of your fevered imagination.

  22. That noted conservative Walter Mondale calls Barack Obama’s teleprompters his “idiot boards”. Totally awesome.

  23. I want my Alabama Bingo Bribery Story.

    ehh, maybe Alabama state legislutors being arrested on fedral indictments for taking bribes from gambling interests isn’t news after all. just the cost of doing bidness in the Deep South

    1. Yeah you right!

  24. I see the Cascadia fault is getting active as well as the area around Raineer. based on my severely limited knowledge of seismology and my psychosis, I predict that the Cacadia fault will slip before the end of the year generating an earthquake in the 8.8 range on the Richter scale. Lookout west coast, here it comes and it’s gonna be a monster.

  25. Troll-rolled after just 5 comments!

  26. Dems gain, my foot.
    It’s a couple of MSM polls!
    They’re slanted junk.

  27. Interesting.

    Almost 400 posts, five topics to pick from, and what dominates the discussion? The deranged workings of an obscure fire department.

    And who’s wondering why libertarians can’t get elected?

    But b’god, we’ve got some pure libertarian thoughts going about that fire department thing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.