# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/81 "2010-10-05T16:39:45Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > > [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > > > In my experience as a licensed agent, no. Or, at the very least, they’ll fight it, because he did not pay the $75 yearly fee. > > > > In that case some lawyer will become today’s glazier. > > Okay, so why does the fire department owe him anything, but an insurance agency doesn’t? Apples. Oranges. I only said what the Insurance company would do. If I were a JUDGE I would rule that the insurance company owes him. But you’re not making a valid comparison. > [@](#): > > As a licensed agent, what would you say to a guy that called up after not paying his policy, and demand you pay benefits? Do you not see that as the same thing? No. > [@](#): > > Why is it the fire department owes this guy anything? Because the fire department declining to help him is an immediate safety risk to other properties besides his own? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/82 "2010-10-05T16:40:26Z")
Somewhere, **Rand Rover** is skipping. ---
**Author:** ![crazyjoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f14d63/32.png) [@crazyjoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crazyjoe)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/83 "2010-10-05T16:41:15Z")
Here’s a link to google maps for the area in question: https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Gene%2BCranick%2BFarm,%2BSouth%2BFulton,%2BTN&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=51.222969,78.662109&ie=UTF8&hq=Gene%2BCranick%2BFarm,&hnear=South%2BFulton,%2BObion,%2BTennessee&ll=36.491904,-88.842745&spn=0.049544,0.076818&t=h&z=14&iwloc=A&cid=10129585289845351830 There is no danger of wiping out a city because this guy’s house was allwed to burn. Firefighters were on the scene and could control the blaze should it spread to neighboring property, which it did, and it was controlled by spraying water along the property line to prevent the fire from spreading. I don’t like the idea of fire subscription service either, but in this case it’s how things are done, and I damn sure would have made sure I paid it every year. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/84 "2010-10-05T16:42:10Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Libertarians also don’t generally have a problem with neighborhood zoning laws, given that you have a choice of which neighborhood you choose to live in. So in a libertarian world there would be nothing stopping a neighborhood from demanding that everyone in it pay into a fire protection fund which is then used to pay for blanket fire protection for the entire community. In fact, that would by far be the most likely result in a libertarian world. On what basis do you assume this would be the most likely result when we have a crystal clear example of that NOT being the result? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/85 "2010-10-05T16:42:39Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > In any case, it’s not a valid argument for what we’re discussing. > > Saying that a house burning down is a great thing for the local community isn’t the sturdiest argument ever. Just sayin’. Clearly, the local community MADE THE CHOICE that they are okay carrying that cost. Why? Because it means they don’t have the added cost of establishing and maintaining a fire house, and collecting taxes, and all the other burden. There is a cost to having a providing fire protection services. His community decided it was too high to bother with, that they’d rather go without. HE decided to live there. This didn’t sneak up on him. So, “the local community” benefited for years with this system. At some point over the past century, they weighed the cost, and DECIDED if they only lose 1 house a year they come out ahead. That’s how risk/reward works. My god man, you just said you work in insurance, how are you not familiar with this? In other words, the cost of losing this guy’s house is of no concern to the community, which is why they didn’t care enough to provide fire protection. Remember, they had a choice, no one forced this on them or Cranick. If losing this guy’s house is such a big deal, carries such a high cost, than the “local community” should have known that, you know, last year, and paid for his $75. No one owes him anything that he CHOOSE not to pay for. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/86 "2010-10-05T16:43:45Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Is it impossible to have the fire department bring an invoice for the cost of putting out the fire + 20%? No, it’s not impossible, but experience shows they have a less than 50% chance of actually collecting it. I imagine that failure rate goes up with the premium added to cover non-payers. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/87 "2010-10-05T16:44:31Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Somewhere, **Rand Rover** is skipping. Honestly, I think the system they have in place, while not perfect, is absolutely defensible. Scarce resources and all that. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/88 "2010-10-05T16:45:15Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > > [@emacknight](#): > > > > Okay, so why does the fire department owe him anything, but an insurance agency doesn’t? > > Apples. Oranges. I only said what the Insurance company would do. If I were a JUDGE I would rule that the insurance company owes him. But you’re not making a valid comparison. > No. > > > [@](#): > > > > Why is it the fire department owes this guy anything? > > Because the fire department declining to help him is an immediate safety risk to other properties besides his own? The $75 fee was an insurance policy for fire protection, if there is a fire, the department will help. I pay $800 a year for home owners insurance. If my house burns down they’ll pay for a new one. If I don’t pay my premium, does my insurance company owe me anything? Forget the fucking neighbours that don’t exist. If I don’t pay my premium, does my insurance company owe me anything? ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/89 "2010-10-05T16:46:21Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > > [@Voyager](#): > > > > Is it impossible to have the fire department bring an invoice for the cost of putting out the fire + 20%? > > No, it’s not impossible, but experience shows they have a less than 50% chance of actually collecting it. I imagine that failure rate goes up with the premium added to cover non-payers. So just add +20% on top of that, problem solved. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/90 "2010-10-05T16:50:32Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Libertarians are not anarchists. In fact, the difference between libertarians and Anarchists is that libertarians believe government is responsible for maintaining civil society, and almost all libertarians would agree that that includes government handling the police, courts of law, the military, and a certain amount of public infrastructure. The overwhelming majority of libertarians would also include essential services like fire protection and sanitation, although their bias would be towards finding a way to include as much personal choice and private action as possible _while still maintaining effective services_. This is exactly right. This isn’t a case of liberatarianism gone awry. The guy was just trying to get something for nothing. Sounds more like your standard-issue liberal to me. PS the guy says he [‘forgot’](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001) to pay it. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/91 "2010-10-05T16:56:09Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > So, “the local community” benefited for years with this system. At some point over the past century, they weighed the cost, and DECIDED if they only lose 1 house a year they come out ahead. That’s how risk/reward works. My god man, you just said you work in insurance, how are you not familiar with this? Because I deal with financial risk. Comparing that to the actual risk of your house and someone else’s burning down is comparing apples vs oranges. > [@](#): > > In other words, the cost of losing this guy’s house is of no concern to the community, which is why they didn’t care enough to provide fire protection. Remember, they had a choice, no one forced this on them or Cranick. Thank God I do not live in such a hell hole. > [@](#): > > If losing this guy’s house is such a big deal, carries such a high cost, than the “local community” should have known that, you know, last year, and paid for his $75. They should have known that, but didn’t. > [@](#): > > No one owes him anything that he CHOOSE not to pay for. Except that this puts others at risk for paying for his choice. Look, dude, I can see you’re getting all fired up about this. How about this. You move there, and I’ll stay away from there. Deal? ---
**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 5, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/92 "2010-10-05T17:00:39Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > > > Libertarians are not anarchists. In fact, the difference between libertarians and Anarchists is that libertarians believe government is responsible for maintaining civil society, and almost all libertarians would agree that that includes government handling the police, courts of law, the military, and a certain amount of public infrastructure. The overwhelming majority of libertarians would also include essential services like fire protection and sanitation, although their bias would be towards finding a way to include as much personal choice and private action as possible _while still maintaining effective services_. > > This is exactly right. This isn’t a case of liberatarianism gone awry. The guy was just trying to get something for nothing. Sounds more like your standard-issue liberal to me. Trying to get something for nothing is as libertarian as it gets. Liberals on the other hand are anything but. Tax and spend, remember? And the difference between libertarians and anarchists is that libertarians are anarchists who want just enough government to keep the people they exploit and abuse from coming after them. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/93 "2010-10-05T17:01:18Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > Look, dude, I can see you’re getting all fired up about this. How about this. You move there, and I’ll stay away from there. Deal? I don’t think anyone here would want to live under such conditions. I’d move away, in fact (though while I owned property there I’d pay the fucking $75, and maybe do so for the houses on each side of me. No one thinks that this outcome is good or just or proper–but this outcome is the obvious predictable consequence of the circumstances they made for themselves, despite repeated attempts to fix it the way it should be fixed. I’m not going to save my tears in a bottle for them. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/94 "2010-10-05T17:11:15Z")
I’m surprised by the large number of posts claiming that fire district should have acted to preserve its tax revenue. While this may be valid in its own narrow financial discourse, it overlooks my big question which is _ **What has America come to?** _ > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > … So in a libertarian world there would be nothing stopping a neighborhood from demanding that everyone in it pay into a fire protection fund which … > > … so when choosing a neighborhood to live in, I’m going to pick one which requires all residents to pay into the fire protection fund… > > It might look pretty much like what exists now, except that fire stations would be subject to competition … Frankly it sounds _extremely_ similar to what exists now, except for a few misconceptions, such as (1) you gloss over the need for coercion: funds would be mandated by a 51% vote (or perhaps 67%), not unanimity. (2) you overestimate mobility. people have roots, friends, non-fire protection needs and it’s silly to imagine them selling their home and moving to save a few dollars on fire protection. (3) you seem to assume for-profit fire-protection services will certainly be better than government-provided. (Let’s agree to disagree quietly on that as there’s no shortage of GD threads on that question.) So, all in all, once these misconceptions are set aside, it’s great to see libertarians endorse what is essentially the present system of fire protection (outside the hyper-libertarian system applied to the Cranick’s). I apologize if I misrepresented intelligent “libertarians” as hyper-libertarian. I’m deceived by some vocal but less intelligent posters on these boards. (Several threads ago, BTW, I specifically asked for a libertarian “platform” and received only one response, and it was instead a barely intelligible version of “fiscal conservatism.”) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/95 "2010-10-05T17:11:40Z")
Quoth **Sam Stone** : > [@](#): > > Ah, another ‘attack libertarianism with a straw man’ argument. This isn’t a strawman. We’re not in one of **Skald the Rhymer** ’s threads with a silly hypothetical involving an invasion by time-traveling aliens who want to abduct Natalie Portman. This is a real situation that really happened in the real world, because of real people making decisions based on libertarian principles. > [@](#): > > Those libertarians who believe in privatized fire services would probably argue that in an ideal world there would be free-market incentives to behave correctly. For example, in a world of voluntary for-profit fire protection, no one is going to lend you money for a house unless you show proof of fire insurance. And no insurance company is going to give you fire insurance unless you pay for fire protection. In fact, you’d probably wind up with a situation in which fire protection is underwritten by consortiums of insurance companies protecting their own assets, much like insurance companies pay for UL approvals and fund Underwriter’s Laboratories. > > But we don’t live in that world, so trying to make fire protection voluntary with none of the free-market controls in place to make voluntary fire protection work is just silly. Exactly, we _don’t_ live in the world where pure libertarianism would work, so we shouldn’t try to apply pure libertarianism. Quoth **Mr Smashy** : > [@](#): > > This is exactly right. This isn’t a case of liberatarianism gone awry. The guy was just trying to get something for nothing. Sounds more like your standard-issue liberal to me. The only reason this situation was even possible was because of libertarianism gone awry. The way this _should_ have happened would be that the $75 was a tax, the homeowner is obligated to pay it, and the fire department is obligated to fight the fire. If that were the situation, then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion right now. Instead, though, because a community decided that they’d try to apply a political philosophy that can’t cope with freeloaders, when someone inevitably tried to freeload, the system broke down, and we got a situation that was lose-lose for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/96 "2010-10-05T17:21:25Z")
Losing the house & its contents is a loss not only to the Cranicks but to the total wealth of the community. As many times as I’ve seen rightie propertarian types complain about deadweight losses & broken window fallacies, it would be hypocritical for them to now claim that this loss is for the greater good. It’s a matter of putting wealth of the nation above your own interest–& not even your own economic interest–more precisely, above your own wounded pride. There is a right answer, & it’s _save what you can from destruction, even if it’s not yours._ Note that this principle does not necessarily apply to theft. One may still rationally allow police & courts to be pay-to-play. I _think_ it’s better for police & courts to be completely publicly funded. But I am _sure_ that preventing the destruction of the material value of a house is morally worth doing even uncompensated. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/97 "2010-10-05T17:22:39Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > Thank God I do not live in such a hell hole. No, thank god you can make the _choice_. That’s what this is about, choice. This guy made the choice not to pay. I’ll ask you again, if I don’t pay my insurance premium, does my insurance company owe me anything? > [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > They should have known that, but didn’t. This isn’t the first, nor the last time this happened. They know, and they’re okay with that cost. if they weren’t, they would pay. > [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > No one owes him anything that he CHOOSE not to pay for. > > Except that this puts others at risk for paying for his choice. No, it puts them at risk for THEIR choice. It’s all about choice. His neighbours know that it’s an opt out system, the community knows that it is an opt-out system. Everyone involved is fully informed, and has made their choice. As I said, if the neighbour wants fire protection, he can choose to get it. If keeping Mr Cranick’s house from burning is in his best interest, he can choose to pay that too. That’s the beauty of choice. If his neighbour feels at risk, he can choose to move to a place with socialized fire protection. > [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > Look, dude, I can see you’re getting all fired up about this. How about this. You move there, and I’ll stay away from there. Deal? Why the hell would I want to live there? I CHOOSE not to because that system sucks. I choose a neighbourhood with extremely high property taxes and a massive fire department. Mr Cranick made his choice, no one owes him anything. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/98 "2010-10-05T17:25:28Z")
Another data point: in 2007, Crannick’s son caused a fire in his house. The FD came out, put the fire out, and let Crannick pay the $75 the next day with the understanding that he now saw the value of the subscription fee. Instead, the lesson Crannick apparently took was that he didn’t have to pay at all. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/99 "2010-10-05T17:26:47Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Losing the house & its contents is a loss not only to the Cranicks but to the total wealth of the community. As many times as I’ve seen rightie propertarian types complain about deadweight losses & broken window fallacies, it would be hypocritical for them to now claim that this loss is for the greater good. > > It’s a matter of putting wealth of the nation above your own interest–& not even your own economic interest–more precisely, above your own wounded pride. There is a right answer, & it’s _save what you can from destruction, even if it’s not yours._ > > Note that this principle does not necessarily apply to theft. One may still rationally allow police & courts to be pay-to-play. I _think_ it’s better for police & courts to be completely publicly funded. But I am _sure_ that preventing the destruction of the material value of a house is morally worth doing even uncompensated. Wow, you just spray painted the Star of David on the wall of a mosque with that statement. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/100 "2010-10-05T17:45:38Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > Wow, you just spray painted the Star of David on the wall of a mosque with that statement. I don’t know what you mean. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104.md?page=6)