# 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:** 9
**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 5, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/161 "2010-10-05T21:30:13Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Again, fires spread. This wasn’t in a fireplace and they didn’t have any magical assurance it couldn’t grow out of control. Except, you know, their professional training at fire fighting. > [@](#): > > You are an extortionist at the least. And a terrorist if you offer other people water and leave me to die in order to intimidate the other people into paying. And I’d feel perfectly justified in such a situation in killing you and taking your water. You’re dying of thirst, bucko. I don’t think you’re in a position to do no killin. So I am an extortionist if I don’t give you something that I have an abundance of but which you desperately need? Interesting concept. Kind of lacks the “extortion” part, though. > [@](#): > > Yes, they did. They refused his offer to pay which meant it wasn’t about the money. Too little, too late. It’s an insurance product, it’s not a pre-paid fire services plan. Offering to post-pay for a risk that you knowingly and voluntarily refused to insure yourself for is irrelevant. ---
**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, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/162 "2010-10-05T21:30:23Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > 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. > > The setup hasn’t been abandoned, it was explicitly set up this way by the county residents who voted on it in 2002. I meant that it was abandoned over the whole country decades ago due to the disastrous results. This is a revival of an extremely stupid and unethical idea. ---
**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 5, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/163 "2010-10-05T21:32:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@hansel](#): > > > > The setup hasn’t been abandoned, it was explicitly set up this way by the county residents who voted on it in 2002. > > I meant that it was abandoned over the whole country decades ago due to the disastrous results. This is a revival of an extremely stupid and unethical idea. No, it was abandoned in urban areas where the free rider problem of voluntarily paying for fire services has grave consequences for everyone. You are aware that most rural areas don’t have paid fire services, and instead rely on volunteer fire protection districts, right? But, yes, I would rather them have taxed everyone and been done with it. Unfortunately, the shitheads that don’t want to pay the taxes don’t get ex-post relief from their stupidity. ---
**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, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/164 "2010-10-05T21:34:57Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > Again, fires spread. This wasn’t in a fireplace and they didn’t have any magical assurance it couldn’t grow out of control. > > Except, you know, their professional training at fire fighting. This had nothing to do with their training. Somehow I doubt “let the house burn to teach them a lesson” was part of the training. > [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > You’re dying of thirst, bucko. I don’t think you’re in a position to do no killin. Unless I have a gun, or have many friends, or if I’m not dying yet but will. > [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > So I am an extortionist if I don’t give you something that I have an abundance of but which you desperately need? Interesting concept. Kind of lacks the “extortion” part, though. “Pay or die” is as extortionist as it gets. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/165 "2010-10-05T21:37:01Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I meant that it was abandoned over the whole country decades ago due to the disastrous results. This is a revival of an extremely stupid and unethical idea. It was abandoned in urban areas. Do you have good evidence that it was abandoned in all rural areas? ---
**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 5, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/166 "2010-10-05T21:38:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > This had nothing to do with their training. Somehow I doubt “let the house burn to teach them a lesson” was part of the training. no, but “we’re not putting out a fire unless it affects a covered customer” is part of their training. and guess what, that’s the exact assessment they made. > [@](#): > > Pay or die" is as extortionist as it gets. I’m not even offering you water, though. Just like the Cranicks weren’t even offered the possibility of fire fighting services. ---
**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, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/167 "2010-10-05T21:48:13Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@hansel](#): > > > > The setup hasn’t been abandoned, it was explicitly set up this way by the county residents who voted on it in 2002. > > I meant that it was abandoned over the whole country decades ago due to the disastrous results. This is a revival of an extremely stupid and unethical idea. Exactly: it’s a revival of a stupid and unethical idea. That doesn’t make the fire fighters at fault for not overcoming the stupidity of it at the expense of the people who actually pay, because all that does is enable the people who revived the idea to say “it works!” Crannick is _on record_ saying that he thought they’d just put the fire out anyway, whether he paid or not. He was _counting on_ them to do it. His whole fire protection plan is “I won’t pay, and they’ll fight fires for me anyway.” All fighting the fire would accomplish is to prove Crannick correct. ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/168 "2010-10-05T22:01:39Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > All fighting the fire would accomplish is to prove Crannick correct. It would have stopped the fire, which is what matters. ---
**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, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/169 "2010-10-05T22:03:18Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@hansel](#): > > > > All fighting the fire would accomplish is to prove Crannick correct. > > It would have stopped the fire, which is what matters. They did stop the fire, once it left Crannick’s property. It would also have demonstrated that there’s no need for any rural resident to fund the fire department because they’ll do it for free! ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/170 "2010-10-05T22:43:31Z")
Why didn’t the neighbor pay for Cranick’s fire service? Yeah, it’s a joke, but it is also a logically consistent argument. That’s why services like this are socialized, each house gets value from having its own fire protection and also from having fire protection for nearby properties. You are bound to have free riders, so you tax them and provide the service. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/171 "2010-10-05T22:54:25Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > > > 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? > > Duh. “In a libertarian world.” A different universe with different people with different instincts. No, we’re not talking about different people, we’re talking about different political structures and incentives. In many cases, when government enters the economic space, it breaks down structures and institutions that regulate behavior in other ways. This makes it very hard or impossible to go back. For example, when government created social security, it started a process which helped destroy support networks that existed to do the same thing. Mutual aid societies, extended families, even housing changed. Savings habits changed. Even attitudes towards moral choices (the virtue of thrift, for example) were watered down. Now there is a culture of dependency on government. Private safety nets are gone. Family structures have changed. So it would be very, very hard to go back. The same can be said for private fire services. Had the government never been involved, we can imagine all sorts of ways in which the needs for fire protection would have evolved through voluntary transaction. But it would require changes in attitude, the existence of evolved support structures and markets, etc. None of that exists today, so there’s no easy path to a free market fire service for large communities. Small communities which never had public funding for fire services _did_ evolve their own programs. My uncle was a volunteer fireman in his town, and I rode along on more than one call to a fire. The cost of the fire truck and other equipment was raised through donations, but the culture of the small town really frowns on people who won’t add their support. Peer pressure ensures a supply of volunteers. Neighborhood fire watches and reporting systems evolved and are effective. Now, I’ll grant that this approach only works for very small communities, but my point is that if the federal government decided to create federal fire departments in every town and parachute in federal employees to run them, the whole culture of volunteerism would vanish. The fire department would become an entitlement, and the community would disconnect from it and instead just lean on it and make demands. If you take the time to look, you can see market-oriented solutions to problems that government purports to solve anywhere where the government isn’t involved. Just have a look at the evolution of the internet, which has been relatively free from government interference. The explosion of information has led to better search mechanisms. The chaos of the original internet has evolved into many structures that serve small communities - like the SDMB. The worry about the accuracy of bloggers and other bad information has led to the rise of trusted content aggregators and a very robust review culture that is far better at telling me which products are good and which are bad than the CPSC ever has. The risk of fraud and financial loss has led to the rise of Paypal and other intermediaries who protect consumers and smooth the flow of money. Fly-by-night retailers and scammers have an increasingly tough time of it as people learn to use vendor reviews and trusted sites to point them to businesses that have good practices. I could go on. An entire economy has been created on the internet, and an entire social sphere, with hardly any government involvement at all. The result has been a robust, dynamic system that rapidly evolves to meet our needs, with surprisingly strong controls against fraud and coercion. It’s not perfect, but I can’t imagine a government-regulated internet being remotely as good. If the government demanded that web sites be licensed and inspected for diversity requirements, ADA compliance, and accuracy of content, that web programmers have government licenses and certification, and that web standards would be approved by the government and their use mandated, we would have hobbled the internet in so much red tape and expense that it would be a pale shadow of itself. And none of those other institutions would have developed. If the government certified and licensed all web resellers, there would be no review culture because it would have been displaced. If government controlled the internet as much as it controls brick-and-mortar business, we might be having a discussion where the ‘crazy libertarians’ would be saying that anyone should be free to open up a web business without interference, and you would be arguing that it’s impossible and that we’d be swamped by crooks and charlatans because the government is the only thing preventing it. And you’d be right - at that time. ---
**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 5, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/172 "2010-10-05T22:55:55Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > Why didn’t the neighbor pay for Cranick’s fire service? > > Yeah, it’s a joke, but it is also a logically consistent argument. That’s why services like this are socialized, each house gets value from having its own fire protection and also from having fire protection for nearby properties. You are bound to have free riders, so you tax them and provide the service. Yep, however there’s a dynamic at play in this specific scenario that mitigates against this type of free rider problem (the dynamic that Der Trihs is woefully arguing against): because it’s rural property and the population density is extremely low, there are no free rider issues in terms of people obtaining fire protection benefit that they haven’t paid for - fire just doesn’t hop 3000 feet over fields fast enough that the fire department has to put out the free rider’s fire lest it ruin the paying customer’s house. Instead, the free rider problem rears its head here when you have apologists attempting to castigate the fire department for refusing to self-impose a free rider problem. ---
**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, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/173 "2010-10-05T23:07:15Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > > [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > > > Wow, this is so entertaining. I could make a movie out of this. > > > > “South Fulton Fire Department, how can I help you?” > > “OMFG! My house is on fire! Please help!” > > “Please state our name so we can verify that you paid for our services.” > > “John and Paulette Libertaria! Please hurry!” > > “Sorry, sir, we don’t have any records of payments from a John and Paulette Libertaria. Do you have your receipts?” > > “We can’t reach our receipts, the room is on fire!” > > “Ah, well we can’t verify your payment history, sir and madam. We lost all our records last week to the Conficker virus…” > > > > 😃 > > Even funnier with an Indian accent Ooooh, that’s harsh. 😃 ---
**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, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/174 "2010-10-05T23:14:43Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The problem is that ‘libertarians’ are always forced to fight straw man arguments because _other people_ assume that libertarianism has to be ‘pure’, and ‘pure’ means anarchism. So those of us who simply want to eliminate government from areas where market solutions exist and where government has demonstrably failed are instead subjected to arguments about privatizing fire services and police forces. Ah, I feel for Libertarians then. It’s much better sport to take them on what they think are their strong points, like getting rid of the welfare, the Department of Education, and unemployment insurance; and privatizing Social Security. > [@](#): > > It would be like a liberal proposing a new regulation of finance, and being forced to debate the collectivization of agriculture instead because it’s all ‘statism’, and if you can’t defend collectivization of agriculture then ‘statism’ can be shown to have failed and therefore you should not be allowed to regulate finance. How would that work for you? Eh, they do that all the time to liberals. ---
**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, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/175 "2010-10-05T23:23:21Z")
I think it’s time for certain someone’s nap. ---
**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, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/176 "2010-10-05T23:25:28Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > > > Can I offer to pay up my car insurance arrearages when I get into a car crash? Pretty please. > > Wait. Better yet. Can I get a car insurance policy to cover an accident I just got into? > > Flo: Thanks for calling Progressive, how may I help you? > Rumor: Sweetness. Can I sign up for car insurance right after I get in a car crash? > Flo: Um, no. Sorry, policies have to be purchased prior to an event in order for the event to be covered. > Rumor: But I’m offering to pay you for a policy NOW! I’ll even pay a little more! > Flo: That’s not how this works > Rumor: Terrorist. I asked that a couple of times, apparently you can. Just call **Le Jacquelope** , he’ll hook you up. The casino on the other hand is not nearly as gracious. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/177 "2010-10-05T23:26:39Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > > > The problem is that ‘libertarians’ are always forced to fight straw man arguments because _other people_ assume that libertarianism has to be ‘pure’, and ‘pure’ means anarchism. > > No, it’s because libertarians are notorious for their insistence on ideological purity. I don’t deny that such people are out there, but you’re doing exactly what I criticized you for doing: Turning _some_ libertarians into _all_ libertarians, and dismissing the entire movement. There are plenty of lefties around who are ‘purists’ fighting for communism, community ownership of all goods, nationalization of all business, collectivization of agriculture, and all the rest of the goody bag of far left policies. Yet we have no problem recognizing that there are many gradations along the left-wing axis from center-left ‘good government’ liberals to social democrats to socialists to communists. You are free to argue for a social democratic position without being labeled a communist and without being forced to defend mass starvations or the executions of Kulaks or the disasters of Mao’s 5-year plans. But in your mind, and the mind of many liberals, anyone arguing for a free market in some specific area is a radical libertarian or anarchist who doesn’t believe government should do anything at all, and anyone making any kind of social conservative argument is a far-right John Birch Society member who wants to enslave women and minorities. You’re utterly incapable of seeing nuance on the right or accepting the validity of some arguments for markets without screaming ‘radical libertarian! You want to privatize EVERYTHING!’ > [@](#): > > Libertarians are well known for their insistence that the private sector can do anything better than the government Because They Say So. And for their insistence that free market solutions exist even when they don’t. That’s funny, because I’ll bet I know ten times as many libertarians as you do, and I never hear that. But you probably know ten times as many caricatures of libertarians, and they all help you build your little narrative that allows you to figuratively put your fingers in your ears and go, “lalalala” whenever a failure of government or a legitimate market-oriented solution is pointed out to you. ---
**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, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/178 "2010-10-05T23:30:12Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > I asked that a couple of times, apparently you can. Just call **Le Jacquelope** , he’ll hook you up. The casino on the other hand is not nearly as gracious. Excuse me, don’t misrepresent what I said. I said that insurance companies would refuse you or fight you in court for what the Cranicks did. I did not ever say they would insure you if you got in an accident and then tried to get them a policy. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/179 "2010-10-05T23:34:00Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > > [@foolsguinea](#): > > > > Duh. “In a libertarian world.” A different universe with different people with different instincts. > > No, we’re not talking about different people, we’re talking about different political structures and incentives. > > In many cases, when government enters the economic space, it breaks down structures and institutions that regulate behavior in other ways. This makes it very hard or impossible to go back. > > For example, when government created social security, it started a process which helped destroy support networks that existed to do the same thing. Mutual aid societies, extended families, even housing changed. Savings habits changed. Even attitudes towards moral choices (the virtue of thrift, for example) were watered down. > > Now there is a culture of dependency on government. Private safety nets are gone. Family structures have changed. So it would be very, very hard to go back. In what world are private safety nets gone? I have to pay for my own retirement, and so does everyone I know. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2010, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104/180 "2010-10-05T23:34:23Z")
Except…[it was a government-run fire company](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/10/bizarre_salon_a.html). > [@](#): > > It turns out, though, that the fire department in Tennessee was not a private for-profit fire department. It was a government-run fire department. You read that right: the fire department that refused to show up and refused to name a price at which it would show up was run by the government of South Fulton. > > So let’s see now: Libertarians tend to advocate that government not be in the business of providing fire protection because we think that people should be free to contract with whoever they want to contract with and, as a side benefit, they will get better protection at a lower cost. If someone could show us that this works badly, we would look at that case. But it’s bizarre for a statist to attack libertarians when his own statist alternative works out badly. That’s exactly what Alex Pareene and many of his commenters did. What’s next: blaming libertarians because TSA is taking x-rays of people? Or blaming libertarians because the government is so vicious in the drug war? Or blaming libertarians because government schools are so lousy? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cranicks-folly-libertarianism-at-its-finest/556104.md?page=10)