By the time they have started to look for it, a bunch of people are going to be sick, and they will need much more than their crappy share of a lawsuit.
To answer your questions:
- watch the fire so you know when to act
- prepare the water hoses and sufficient supplies of water
- you do NOT, emphatically, in this case, put out the fire on his property. Let his house burn down.
- getting sufficient water supplies is part of the preparation
- if there are adjacent trees, cut down the ones on your side
You may say that’s ridiculous but hey, you posed a ridiculous situation, it calls for ridiculous means to fix it.
Sure. But that’s what it takes. And when you are warned and watching for it, you can time the fire equipment getting on the scene correctly.
When the fire crosses his property line, he is attempting to damage the property of others.
Apart from all that, of course, the neighborhood would be likely to have some kind of local government with the zoning etc. that would prevent problems like that occurring. Or if it doesn’t, once that starts, it will form one so they don’t occur in the future. And before you ask, no, libertarians are not against neighborhood associations - as long as the contracts are voluntarily entered into.
Or you could just stop being a selfish asshole and help put your neighbor’s house out.
For enormously stupid people, laws are not a sufficient barrier. So if you’re enormously stupid, and, as you pointed out, have access to the material, you could do what you described today, in spite of the laws that are prohibiting it.
Definitely not. Since he was warned not to do what he was doing and presenting a danger to the neighborhood. Maybe if his house burns down, he’ll move. Or learn his lesson.
Wouldn’t it be simpler just to have a fire code and a fire department?
After all what happens if his house goes up while you’re at work?
40,000 deaths per year due to sneezes? Are you operating under the assumption that all influenza deaths are caused solely by improperly covered sneezes? If so, you are mistaken. Health professionals realize that a government regulation that forbids sneezing in public would be foolish, impossible to enforce, and would not reduce influenza infection appreciably.
So, there is no such stupid regulation. You may think all governments do is think up stupid regulations, however this is not the case. They are based on logic, scientific reasoning and risk assessment.
That is why health professionals have deemed that antibiotics should not be available like M&M’s to those with no training in medical diagnosis. Because the risk is real, and it is easy to regulate access.
See? The two cases are not comparable.
You have actually given an example where the government does not excessively regulate, in an area where professionals have told them it would do no good. If you can find a stupid regulation, by all means, bring it up as an example. But making up stupid regulations that don’t even exist? This really does your argument no favors.
I can’t afford a lawsuit, therefore I have no rights or protections in Libertaria. There would be less regulations to stop me from being harmed in the first place.
And I would rather pay a percentage of taxes to the government for guaranteed regulations than keep large stocks of cash to try to get recompensation for when I am inevitably wronged by someone else taking advantage of the lax regulations. Plus lawsuits are, like, annoying man.
The fire code and the fire department is what would probably be happening in a Libertopia anyway. Except the fire code would be a contract entered into voluntarily when you buy the house in the neighborhood (and it would be a condition of the contract that you could only sell to someone who would agree to the fire code as well).
Sneezes, coughs, unwashed hands, and walking around sick in public, yes.
Just because it is easy to curtail freedom doesn’t mean it should be done.
And you have yet to show me how many deaths yearly there are because of drug resistant bacteria.
If you would rather do that, I am sure you could find a group in Libertopia who think like you, voluntarily join them and sign the contract that would allow them to tax you in return for providing such services.
Fools are damn ingenious, which is why I would be loathe to live in a land overrun and unchecked by them.
Also, Are federal organizations like the FDA still operating on full authority to regulate proper canned food sterilization? That costs the company Golden Peaches, Inc. $3 million just to set up. So I buy from Fuzzy Peaches, inc, because their product is much cheaper, since they don’t use such expensive sterilization systems, and I can just sterilize my own.
Or maybe I’m just a psychopatic weirdo boyscout with a keen interest in chemistry, and easily build my own neutron gun by going to the local hardware store to pick up some americium and use it to irradiate Cobalt 59, and dump my yield into a random river miles and miles away that is used by local farmers to water their delicious, organic sweet potatoes.
And you best sell me Americium, dammit, it’s my god-given right to buy it if it’s in demand.
Also, Mercury is really fun to play with! I’m gonna build a huge 4’ high, 8’ in diameter pool of it in my backyard, right next to your property, just so me and my friends can just float on it and smoke crack.
So what’s the difference between the mandatory-voluntary contract, and local government?
When you voluntary move to a location, isn’t that an agreement to obey it’s laws?
Also if a boss got touchy-feely, and demand sexual service or firing, would the employee have to prostitute themselves to keep their job? Assume it’s an at will contract.
Cool story, bro. Maybe you can also have a herd of unicorns in that backyard with rainbows shooting out of their asses.
The contract is a very definite document. What’s not in the contract does not have to be obeyed. And both parties have to agree to amend it.
I as a libertarian would very much encourage enclaves that are run (again, only if on voluntary contractual basis) using whatever political system they adopt. Let the thousand flowers bloom, or stars shine or whatever.
The government would not get involved. If there was a breach of contract, then the employee could sue. If companies wanted to attract employees, the anti-sexual-harassment clauses would be part of the contract.
Yes, it should be done, if the “freedom” of someone to take a medication that will do them no possible good is outweighed by the reality of this decision causing harm to the public health. You do not need the “freedom” to do something useless for yourself that will harm me.
You do not have the freedom to cause me injury. And taking antibiotics improperly does cause injury.
Just one form of antibiotic resistant bacteria, MSRA, Causes more than 18,000 deaths/year in the US
Still does not reach the level of damage sneezing in public does.
Say what?! Unicorns don’t exist. But David Hahn does…
However, as you keep failing to acknowledge, enforcing personal hygiene in public is an impossible task, one which government regulation could never hope to accomplish, and therefore it does not even try.
You keep giving this example, not realizing it shows that government does not get involved in your personal life if by doing so it would be too intrusive. Even if the potential benefit to the public is high, in this particular case, your “freedom” to not be overly regulated in public has been deemed to be higher. The government is being “libertarian” in this case!