# Cranick's Folly: Libertarianism at its finest? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 5, 2010, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104 "2010-10-05T09:02:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/201 "2010-10-06T00:37:36Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > > [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > > Can I offer to pay up my car insurance arrearages when I get into a car crash? Pretty please. > > But that’s not the same in this situation, is it? The home owner offered to pay the costs, no? The fire department refused. If you don’t pay for insurance, it’s not like you can’t get your car fixed–you just pay full price to do so. I would think the same should apply here. (Although I personally would prefer for payments to the fire department to be covered by local taxes.) no, that is correct. the mechanism isn’t exactly the same (especially since there are unknown liability concerns with auto collisions that aren’t really present in a firefighting operation) but the concerns are analogous: do you or do you not want to insure against risk? having said that, maybe they are under some moral-ish obligation to accept his money and put out the fire (I don’t believe they have such an obligation, fwiw, since the effect of this will be to render their “pay if you want service” model ineffective). Let’s say that they are, though. What is the fair sum to pay? $75? Can’t be right, since that amount of money is, effectively, the actuarial risk rate that the FD has set. Paying that same amount after-the-fact doesn’t cover the costs associated with the transaction, and it would mean that no one would pre-pay which would cripple revenues. Pay the actual cost? Now, this seems fair in a purely monetary sense, but there are 3 problems. 1) how exactly do you figure that cost out? the actual cost of fire services has to include the fixed costs of keeping a full staff of firefighters on call 24/7 - i’m not sure you can accurately and fairly calculate that quickly enough to make an arms-length transaction between the fire crews and the guy whose house is on fire 2) collection issues, as have been mentioned already. people would be obviously willing to say that they’d pay 100,000 to protect a house and its contents, but after the emotional event has passed, most of these people would think rationally, realize that their house and contents were only worth, say, 50,000, and then screw the FD 3) this has the potential to be perceived extortion. To me, it’s worse to haggle with the FD as your house is burning - it makes them look awful that they’re even discussing cost and they will never come out of that looking good. so, even if you believe they have a moral obligation or duty to provide after-the-fact fire services on an actual cost basis, there are other issues that make such a regime untenable. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/202 "2010-10-06T00:39:40Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > > [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > > I’m not even offering you water, though. Just like the Cranicks weren’t even offered the possibility of fire fighting services. > > Are you actually arguing that it’s more moral to refuse to help even for a price than to charge an extortionate price for your help? :eek: I’m not claiming i’m righteous in telling you to pound sand - I was asking if I’m a terrorist at that point. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/203 "2010-10-06T00:43:47Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I just don’t see any rational business reason to do so. Let a house burn down, or get $100,000 (or whatever) for putting out the fire? Gee, I know my answer as the head of the FD. I already responded, but I will add this: it’s probably the case that the “or whatever” price that they would charge or they would get from these people would pale in comparison to the number of yearly $75 payments they would stop getting from people who wanted protection but now knew they didn’t have to pre-pay for it ---
**Author:** ![crazyjoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@crazyjoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crazyjoe)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/204 "2010-10-06T00:44:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@crazyjoe](#): > > > > It’s their job to fight fires in the local municipality, and fight them outside those borders for people who have paid their fire subscription. They did fight this fire, and I will trust the judgement of a professional firefighter over some armchair joker on the internet as to whether what they did was safe. > > When a profit motive is involved? Don’t be silly. The whole reason that this sort of setup was originally abandoned was because the result was huge fires when the “fire fighters” stood by and let anyone who didn’t pay burn, and then the fire spread. Even if they aren’t behind this one it’s probably only a matter of time before they start indulging in arson, that setup practically demands it. > > > [@crazyjoe](#): > > > > So you roption is to pay for fire service to help offset the cost of the fire department showing up, or watch your house burn down. > > They offered to pay at the site and the money was refused. That made it not about the money, but out of deliberate desire to see them burn. You’re sharp enough that you understand the profit motive, and you can see the potential for abuse, but you can’t grasp that if you give people the option of paying only when thier house is on fire, that you will not be able to depend on a reliable income which keeps the fire department operationally feasible? Even when it has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread that if they tell people “okay, you can pay xxx and we’ll save your house” that less than half of the people actually pay up? I fail to see how this is anything other than deliberate trolling. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/205 "2010-10-06T00:47:16Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Further to that, what if by experience, 50% of past customers failed to pay. > > Factor that into your price. That’s capitalism, right? And part of capitalism is turning down customers when you don’t think you can make a profit (or at least cover your costs) off them. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/206 "2010-10-06T00:48:31Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > [@pulykamell](#): > > > > I just don’t see any rational business reason to do so. Let a house burn down, or get $100,000 (or whatever) for putting out the fire? Gee, I know my answer as the head of the FD. > > I already responded, but I will add this: it’s probably the case that the “or whatever” price that they would charge or they would get from these people would pale in comparison to the number of yearly $75 payments they would stop getting from people who wanted protection. Sure. It’s one of those things that should be published, if this is the type of arrangement you would like to keep. Either you pay your $75 a year, or you pay $X amount of dollars should your want us to save your house from burning down. Seems eminently fair to me. (Although, once again, I should point out that this is not the arrangement I prefer. I prefer a mandatory spreading of risk among the entire populace, but if one were to do a more “pay as you go” arrangement, this is how I would like it to be set up.) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/207 "2010-10-06T00:49:18Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > No, there aren’t. Not here in America at least. Almost nowhere these days as far as I know. > > Then you’re simply ignorant. The premier think tank for libertarianism in the states is the [Cato Institute](http://cato.org). Why don’t you mosey on over there and read some of their position papers? You won’t find a single thing about eliminating all government. \ You do realize you just warped a comment I made about far leftism into one about libertarianism. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > If not, where do you come off telling me you’re more knowledgeable about what libertarians believe than I am? Because my opinion is built on a lifetime of watching actual libertarians and reading what they say, while you seem to be thinking of some sort of fantasy version of American libertarianism that exists nowhere but in your head. Which is pretty much how you appear to think about all American politics, you have a fantasy version of it that you are very passionate about but which doesn’t actually exist. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You’re also Canadian. And you’ve made it clear over the years that you have very little real understanding of what the American political landscape is actually like. > > I’d also like to make it clear that libertarianism is an international movement, so I’m not even sure why you’re trying to claim that it’s something unique to America. Nor did I say it was. You are ignoring the fact that what gets called “libertarian” in one country doesn’t necessarily have much to do with what gets called “libertarian” somewhere else. And this entire discussion is about an American incident and the OP is clearly referring to libertarianism as typically followed in this country. The attitudes of Canadian/German/whatever libertarians are about as relevant as the surface temperature of Mars. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/208 "2010-10-06T00:52:16Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Sure. It’s one of those things that should be published, if this is the type of arrangement you would like to keep. Either you pay your $75 a year, or you pay $X amount of dollars should your want us to save your house from burning down. Seems eminently fair to me. (Although, once again, I should point out that this is not the arrangement I prefer. I prefer a mandatory spreading of risk among the entire populace, but if one were to do a more “pay as you go” arrangement, this is how I would like it to be set up.) People are known to be absolutely shitty at assessing risk. For example, what do you think would happen if automobile liability insurance was not mandatory? “who me? nah, i’ll never get in a car crash. i’m a GREAT driver. woo hoo! no more liability premium payments for me!!” _renders someone paraplegic as he T-bones another driver_ besides 1) the cost of putting out Fire X on Day Y at House Z isn’t known and 2) going concerns (i.e. operating businesses) need dependable and constant flows of revenue. relying on (relatively) random events to fund your 24/7/365 operation isn’t going to work out. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/209 "2010-10-06T00:53:29Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > > [@pulykamell](#): > > > > Factor that into your price. That’s capitalism, right? > > And part of capitalism is turning down customers when you don’t think you can make a profit (or at least cover your costs) off them. Of course. But that’s stupid. How do you know who will pay and who won’t? Let’s assume you have this insane 50% non-payment rate. You’re the head of the FD. Your cost to put out a fire is $40,000. You charge $100,000 to put out a fire. 50% of the people don’t pay you. Do you not take the deal? ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/210 "2010-10-06T00:55:38Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > > [@hansel](#): > > > > And part of capitalism is turning down customers when you don’t think you can make a profit (or at least cover your costs) off them. > > Of course. But that’s stupid. How do you know who will pay and who won’t? Let’s assume you have this insane 50% non-payment rate. You’re the head of the FD. Your cost to put out a fire is $40,000. You charge $100,000 to put out a fire. 50% of the people don’t pay you. Do you not take the deal? This is the point in the debate where it is pointed out that 50% of households have little or no net worth. People won’t be able to pay $4000, let alone $40k catastrophic injuries and damages can only be paid for if the risk is spread out over a large population or if you are a multi-millionaire. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/211 "2010-10-06T00:56:05Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > People are known to be absolutely shitty at assessing risk. This is exactly why I think it should be spread evenly across the population (via taxes or mandatory payments of some sort.) I’m not sure we disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/212 "2010-10-06T00:57:58Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > > [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > > People are known to be absolutely shitty at assessing risk. > > This is exactly why I think it should be spread evenly across the population (via taxes or mandatory payments of some sort.) I’m not sure we disagree. no, i don’t disagree with this. I’m not the libertarian arguing here - I’m the socialist arguing here. what i do have a problem is with people like this hickville moron who get upset that his master plan to not pay the gubment dat seventy fahve dollars in extra taxes/fees backfired on his ass. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/213 "2010-10-06T00:58:30Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > catastrophic injuries and damages can only be paid for if the risk is spread out over a large population or if you are a multi-millionaire. So, I do think we’re on the same side of the argument here. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/214 "2010-10-06T01:00:59Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > > [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > > catastrophic injuries and damages can only be paid for if the risk is spread out over a large population or if you are a multi-millionaire. > > So, I do think we’re on the same side of the argument here. nm, I misread the citing source. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/215 "2010-10-06T01:02:37Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > > [@hansel](#): > > > > And part of capitalism is turning down customers when you don’t think you can make a profit (or at least cover your costs) off them. > > Of course. But that’s stupid. How do you know who will pay and who won’t? Let’s assume you have this insane 50% non-payment rate. You’re the head of the FD. Your cost to put out a fire is $40,000. You charge $100,000 to put out a fire. 50% of the people don’t pay you. Do you not take the deal? We don’t need to assume. We already know from their experience that, when charging $500 after the fact, they have a less than 50% payment rate. They have no legal means to collect it, since the city has no jurisdiction over county residents. So giving them a bill for $10,000, even if the person said “OMG my house is on fire! I’ll pay anything to put it out”, is pretty much guaranteed to result in never collecting it. I really don’t think you can make the spreadsheet work here. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/216 "2010-10-06T01:10:01Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > [@pulykamell](#): > > > > So, I do think we’re on the same side of the argument here. > > I think so too. I was actually shocked and dismayed that, apparently (from a very cursory read of a secondhand source) Keith Olbermann took the tack that he did: shaming the FD and claiming that this foretells the coming of a government that only services you if you are rich and have money. Yes, I think we’re more on the same page than not. I appreciate the libertarian side of the argument, and I appreciate the socialist side of the argument. I tend to lean towards the socialist side of the argument in this, but I do so from a standpoint where, personally, either side of the argument works for my self-interest. Personally, and morally, though, I cannot imagine a group of fire-fighters who would refuse to put out a fire for monetary reasons. I understand the financial logic behind not doing so. Sure. But everyone I know who has gotten into firefighting (or wanted to) would put out the fire first, ask questions later. I’m not saying this is the optimal way of doing business, but this is the mindset of firefighters I know. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/217 "2010-10-06T01:16:50Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > We don’t need to assume. We already know from their experience that, when charging $500 after the fact, they have a less than 50% payment rate. They have no legal means to collect it, since the city has no jurisdiction over county residents. . I missed the cited statistics in your second sentence. Assuming they are correct, though, the problem would then be not having the legal means to collect the money owed to them . ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/218 "2010-10-06T01:17:11Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Personally, and morally, though, I cannot imagine a group of fire-fighters who would refuse to put out a fire for monetary reasons. I understand the financial logic behind not doing so. Sure. But everyone I know who has gotten into firefighting (or wanted to) would put out the fire first, ask questions later. I’m not saying this is the optimal way of doing business, but this is the mindset of firefighters I know. From what I understand about this, though, they didn’t even go out there until they were called by the “paying customer” And at some level, the firefighters themselves (as compared to their superiors) don’t really have a choice in the matter - they follow the instructions they’re given. I imagine that their own livelihoods and funding has been cut by an exodus of Taxed Enough Already morons who have been leaving the municipal limits (and their tax levies) - at that point I’m not going to start blaming them for not coming to the rescue. Yes, people who are in public safety occupations do like the heroism/saving aspect of the job, but they also expect to be compensated for the personal risk they assume when doing that job. I wouldn’t rush to save some jackass’ house when he didn’t want to help pay for my fire suit and oxygen tank. This is only tangible property we’re talking about, after all - not someone’s life. And, lastly, if there’s any truth to the claim that this happened in 2007 to another member of their family and they _still_ refused to pay, then I’m getting a good picture of the kind of dickhead that the family patriarch is. I mean he did get arrested for assault after all. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/219 "2010-10-06T02:45:24Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > [@pulykamell](#): > > > > Of course. But that’s stupid. How do you know who will pay and who won’t? Let’s assume you have this insane 50% non-payment rate. You’re the head of the FD. Your cost to put out a fire is $40,000. You charge $100,000 to put out a fire. 50% of the people don’t pay you. Do you not take the deal? > > This is the point in the debate where it is pointed out that 50% of households have little or no net worth. > > People won’t be able to pay $4000, let alone $40k > > catastrophic injuries and damages can only be paid for if the risk is spread out over a large population or if you are a multi-millionaire. And then the FD is going to need a finance department to deal with collections and billing. And another to process insurance claims and deal with that whole mess. As well as a legal department to try and recover costs. Then a PR/advertising department to help them compete with rival towns. And of course a lobbiest. I love that people in this thread think that if billed anything more than $75 this guy will actually pay. And that they say it knowing full well the cost of service is waaaaay more than $75. So then, bill people more to compensate. Well of course, the only thing stopping them from making money was not charging people enough. Which ultimately means just one guy is paying for everyone elses coverage. Isn’t that how it always works? That poor poor guy, if only people would just leave him be. He was going to invest in his business and hire more workers. Now he’s worried about Obama suddenly raising the cost of fire protection. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2010, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/220 "2010-10-06T02:53:48Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > I love that people in this thread think that if billed anything more than $75 this guy will actually pay. I’m not saying that, at all. I’m saying either put legal means of recouping this money into the law (if the homeowner should decide to have his home spared) or, preferably, spread the risk among every homeowner. I personally think that this, like police services, medical costs, interstate roads, etc., are best handled through a more socialist framework. But, if you’re not going to do it that way, this is my thought from a capitalist frame of mind. If I know the payout rates are 50%, and my cost of putting out a fire is $40K, and the homeowner offers me $100K (with some sort of legal backing), what rational business decision would impel me _not_ to put out that fire? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104.md?page=12)