I genuinely do not understand this at all. It comes completely out of left field and isn’t in any way justified by anything else that you posted.
Let’s say I buy 1000 acres of pinyon pine scrubland for $100 an acre: low value land, highly susceptible to fire. Can you explain to me exactly why I can’t be expected to maintain fire breaks around this land? Such an exercise isn’t particularly expensive (dozer hire is cheap, and 1, 000 acres only has 5 miles of fence line), but even if this costs me $10, 000 dollars a year, why can’t I be expected to do it?
I really don’t get this? Why can’t someone who has bought a lot of low value land be expected to ensure it doesn’t become a threat to his neighbour’s life and property? Do you also believe that someone who has bought a cheap car can’t be expected to maintain the breaks?
But couldn’t it equally be a good role for private industry? If there is a legal liability for people who don’t take reasonable steps to prevent it, then why isn’t there just as much incentive for private to be hired to do the job?
So someone who will never, ever require a service isn’t compelled to pay for a service that he can’t use.
And you think this is a *bad *thing?
How exactly is this freeloading? If my house has no chance at all of burning down, how exactly am I freeloading by not paying to protect my neighbour’s house form burning down.
You seem to be arguing that people living in apartments should be forced to pay half the cost of a new waterbed bladder for the people upstairs. After all, if the waterbed bursts, it will damage their property as well. So they should be forced to pay to protect the assets of their neighbours.
Never mind libertarian arguments, this make no sense from a basic justice point of view. Refusing to pay for a service I can never use to protect the choices of my neighbours isn’t freeloading, it’s common sense.
Which is precisely the point.
And that coercive power could take the form of suing someone if a fire spread from their property to mine, right?
Sure, but to some extent you need to prioritize your budget cuts. This budget was just passed in March; they knew it was going to be an unusually dry summer, with an elevated risk of wildfires. In the context of the entire state budget, the amount cut in this particular case is chump change. Also I don’t feel that we should just accept it as a given that it’s not an option to raise taxes by one cent. That’s the libertarian mindset.
This isn’t about Perry. I said Texas, not Perry, in the subject line, and I didn’t mention Perry in the OP. Nor is this about the members of the legislature. I started this topic to discuss the policy itself, not the people behind it. Knowing that this board has a few libertarians, I was wondering if any supported this policy (or further, axing the funding altogether), and their reasoning.
But what about the people whose health is affected by the smoke in the air? Do I get to sue the owner of some fairly faraway land because the smoke has wafted over to my city and it’s making my asthma act up? Do the residents of a major city get to file a class-action lawsuit?
The Bay Bridge is an exceedingly unusual example of a project with massive delays and cost overruns. Back when the Bay Bridge’s problems were in the news, a lot of people were pointing to examples of (public) bridges that were completed on-time and on-budget.
Also I don’t think the Bay Bridge would exist in the first place if not for the government, but I suppose that’s a different issue.
Under the current system, can these people sue the taxpayer-funded agencies responsible for fire control on these properties? If they can, then they will be able to sue individual landholders under a libertarian system. If they can’t sue the taxpayer-funded agencies under the current system, then they may not be able to sue landholders under a libertarian system.
These are fringe details, and they get sorted out on a case-by-case basis by the courts, just as they are now. I honestly can’t see how these questions change in any way at all with who is responsible for fire services.
My understanding is that under a libertarian system, everybody needs to take due care or be open to liability. This is actually *tighter *than the current system, where a great many actors are exempt from liability due to legislation. Emergency services are one of the prime beneficiaries of such protection. So the right of people to sue actually increases under a libertarian system. That doesn’t mean that everybody automatically gets to launch a suit, or that all suits will be won.
Some things are simply accidents. A lot of land types will inevitably burn, it can’t be prevented no matter how much care is taken, and no justice system in the world will assign liability to inevitable natural events. If someone takes due care, such as having graded fire breaks around a property boundary, an on-site water tank and fire-fighting pump and so forth, then it’s hard to see how they could be held accountable for the results of any fire. The only difference here is that under the current system there is no incentive at all for people to take such commonsense measures, since the state has taken responsibilty away from the irresponsible and incentive from the responsible.
Why do some homeowners not clear brush from their more valuable land? Why do they store oily rags in their garage? In an ideal world that landowner would be responsible, but if he is busy, has lots of land, and is not doing well financially keeping up with the brush might be low on his list. And remember, 99% of the time there will no negative effects.
Welcome to the real world. People drive around in unsafe cars also. Perhaps you’ve never been too busy to think. These people are not bad or evil - they just prioritize their activities in a way this never gets done. Not everyone has as much spare time to clear brush as President Bush did.
Clear brush or fight fires? See below.
That is not what is happening here. He feels he doesn’t have to pay because his neighbors will, and there paying will protect him. Of course if they don’t clear the brush, or pay to have the fire stopped, he will lose also. It is just like vaccination - if you don’t you are fine so long as everyone else does it.
I deleted what was above because you somehow thought the guy was immune from fire as opposed to not being on the front lines. Building codes are there so the waterbed doesn’t break through the floor, and if there were still a lot of water beds around and this became a big problem, they would be regulated, if they are not now. Still, getting stuff wet is a much less extreme thing than losing your house, and the person not clearing brush did not start the fire. The point of having enough money for fire services is to not prevent all fires - which would never happen - but to get them contained fast enough to not threaten houses.
Near me the stupid gas company put down pipes with bad welds, never inspected them adequately, and then took an hour to turn off the gas when it blew. Over 30 houses were destroyed and I think seven people died. Oh, they are getting sued, but do you think that this is just as good as effective regulation would have been?
If someone’s child dies in the fire I don’t think suing would make him feel very vindicated. Suing is expensive, inefficient, and offers a high risk of defeat - and the party sued may go bankrupt and never pay. Prevention is far less costly. Libertarians in general don’t seem to be big fans of malpractice suits - but wouldn’t deregulating doctors lead to more of them?
The Golden Gate Bridge is more or less privately owned. They started to retrofit 12 years after the quake, and don’t seem to be quite done yet. Cite.
The Bay Bridge delays were during design, in no small part due to the Governator wanting it to be high fashion. The actual construction seems to be proceeding on time and on budget. Of course this is government working together with private contractors.
The driest state in the US is Nevada. But that state can get rain at any time of the year. Central and southern California are unique for having the longest season of no measurable precipitation in the US. Typically, there is no rain for five months (May thru Nov) of the year from the Bay Area down to San Diego.
When I lived in San Diego in 1997, the weatherperson announced that it had rained for the first time in 181 days. This tied the previous record for a third time.
So, let’s say my irresponsible neighbor doesn’t take care of his property, and a fire breaks out that burns down hundreds of homes. Me and my hundred neighbors can sue that one guy for everything he’s got - split 100 ways. And most of what he’s got went up in the fire, same as everyone else’s stuff.
Under a libertarian system, we’re basically fucked, right?
So the solution is to make the penalty sufficiently high when something does go wrong to ensure that it is worth the effort.
Take this to the most extreme level. If the penalty for a fire in scrubland on your property was forfeiture of all your property and all future earnings for the rest of your life to the victim, do you really think that most people would still not bother to clear it?
Seriously, if a fire started on your land though negligence, and as a result your neighbour took possession of all your property and all your earning for the rest of our life beyond, say, $200/wk, do you think may people would not do it?
[quote]
Welcome to the real world. People drive around in unsafe cars also.[/quopte]
Precisely. Coercive measures do not stop people from putting others at risk.
I don’t get this “They can’t afford it” mentality. Clearing brush is part of the cost of owning the land. If people can’t afford to keep it clear, they can’t afford to own it. It’s that simple.
Forcing others pay the costs of their purchasing decisions isn’t just even if they can’t afford it.
I don’t hear the left clamouring that people can’t afford to pay their property taxes or don’t have enough time to pay them, so they should be free not pay them.
For the life of me I can’t work out what you thinkis happening here
Is this what he f**eels, or is this a demonstrable fact? you seem to change from one usage to the other willy nilly, so I can’t decide which you actually mean.
If he simply *feels *his property is protected from fire then in fact he is no different from his neighbours at all and he has to accept the same risks as they do.
If he is in fact protected from fire by the presence of his neighbour then why should he have to pay to protect his neighbour’s property?
He will only lose due to their negligence .
Once again, this is identical to his neighbours having a waterbed bladder that is past the replacement date. Of course if they don’t replace the bladder, or pay to have the leak cleaned up before it seeps through the floor, he will lose also.
Therefore you believe that he should have to contribute to the cost of maintaining his neighbour’s furniture.
This makes no sense at all. The man’s property can only be put at risk if his neighbour’s are negligent in either preventing or controlling fires that originate on their land. Correct?
So why should he have to give money to his neighbours in order to prevent them putting his property at risk? How is this anything less than extortion?
So your contention is that people should be forced to either get vaccinated or be sent to prison? Is that correct?
Because if it is just like vaccination, that is the inevitable result of your argument. You are arguing that people should either have to contribute to fire services via taxes, or else be sent to prison. There is no element of choice here, it is completely coercive. Therefore if this situation is just like vaccination, then you must also believe that people should either have to contribute to herd immunity via vaccination, or else be sent to prison.
Is that your position regarding vaccination? If not can you explain why not, given that the two situations are, in your own words, just the same.
Personally i do believe the situation is just like vaccination. However I actually believe that they are alike and should be treated alike. Just like vaccination it must be a personal choice whether to accept this risk. And just like fire control, if someone doesn’t take the reasonable precaution of vaccinating and you can convince a jury that this led to you becoming ill, you should be able to sue.
No, I never assumed any such thing. How the hell could anybody assume somebody is immune to fire? What is he, superman?
My only condition was one which you explicitly stated: that the only way fire can get into this person’s property is though the neigbouring properties.
No they aren’t.
Name me one building code that aims to prevent this? Damage to underlying apartments from waterbeds occurs all the time.
So you are actually agreeing with me: that forcing the neighbours to pay for the maintenance of the waterbeds would be a really stupid and unjust way to address the problem.
My point has been made then
Of course it is. It’s an analogy. That;s the whole point of analogies.
A fact that I explicitely stated and used as the core of my argument above: Some things are simply accidents… If someone takes due care, such as having graded fire breaks around a property boundary, an on-site water tank and fire-fighting pump and so forth, then it’s hard to see how they could be held accountable for the results of any fire.
I think we all know that. I can’t quite see what point you are trying to make in making with such an obvious statement.
The issue isn’t what money for fire services is used for. The issue is why it is just to collect them form someone who would never need to have a fire contained, except through the negligence of his neighbours.
This seems like incontrovertible proof that regulation *isn’t *effective. The only way to read it any other way is to construct a blatant True Scotsman and argue that the current regulation isn’t effective precisely because it didn’t prevent it.
You cite an example of a highly regulated exercise in a highly regulated locale with a highly regulated substance overseen by highly regulated professionals who received their training at highly regulated institutions. The exercise failed catastrophically and you cite this as an example of why high levels of regulation work to prevent third party losses?
Let’s say a fire breaks out and my irresponsible fire department doesn’t take care of their duty. Let’s say that during the fire the woman in charge is out having a candlit dinner rather than overseeing the operation, the equipment is poorly maintained, the warning system is unintelligible and confusing, co-ordination is nonexistent, hazard reduction burns hadn’t been carried out, roads weren’t closed that should have been and so forth . As a result a fire runs out of control out that burns entire towns and kills dozens of people. (To use a hypothetical example that could never occur in the highly regulated real world of taxpayer funded fire services. Me and my hundred neighbors can sue that one department for everything it’s got - split 100 ways.
Under a current system, you’re fine, right? The state has unlimited amounts of money, so if you sue the state you can always get compensation, right. But where is that money coming from? That’s right, other taxpayers who had no hand at all in the disaster including your fellow victims.
This whole hypothetical seems to be built on two assumptions. The first is that government funded fire services are responsible for less negligent property damage than private citizens would be, and assumption that has no evidential basis. The second is that in the event of such negligence you can somehow sue the state and get money from it, when the truth is that you are doing nothing more than taking money from other innocent taxpayers.
Either way you are screwed under both systems. There’s no free money here. The choice is between the burden being shouldered by you and the other victims, who apparently chose not to take out insurance for such a catastrophe, or the burden being shouldered by every single taxpayer. Those other taxpayers didn’t have any role in the damage you suffered, but you somehow feel it is just to force them to pay for the damages you suffered.
Of course you needn’t be screwed under a libertarian system. I have never heard any libertarian suggest that insurance would be illegal under their system. Nor have I ever heard them suggest that volountary fire brigades would be illegal. If you consider this to be a serious risk, you are still free to take out insurance and you and your 100 neighbours are still free to organise a fire brigade. The only difference is that you are free to do so, you are not compelled to do so.
If you choose to live in a fire prone area, not organise a fire brigade, not take out insurance and not ensure you property is fire-proofed I can’t see how it somehow becomes just to force other people to do those things for you against their will.
The fact that you are screwed in case of a disaster doesn’t make it just to penalise other people who had no role in the disaster.
I completely agree with you Voyager. One of the main difficulties I see with a Libertarian system is the way it tends to be reactive to problems rather than proactive.
A proactive system puts safeguards in place to help prevent costly disasters (eg. fires spreading out of control) or unecessary deaths (eg. poor food handling practices)
A reactive system simply says that if these untoward things happen, the victim is free to collect damages.
The proactive system tends to be less expensive (prevention rather than cleanup or cure) However it is (cue scary music)… Socialist.
In Elizabethan England, there was a death penalty for theft. People still stole. People still murder other people in Texas, despite Rick Perry’s depopulation project. People don’t act on these kinds of calculations.
Anyhow, such a penalty would probably fall in the cruel and unusual punishment class, but since your theory doesn’t even work when the penalty is death, I doubt it would work here no matter.
[ quote]
Seriously, if a fire started on your land though negligence, and as a result your neighbour took possession of all your property and all your earning for the rest of our life beyond, say, $200/wk, do you think may people would not do it?
[/quote]
Behavioral economics has demonstrated that people do all sorts of things not in their rational self interest. Libertarians need to get out of their libertarian fantasy world. Liberals live in ivory towers, where do libertarians live?
Actually, yearly inspections help in this way a lot. Lots of people in inspection states pre-inspect and fix their cars so they don’t get embarrassed by failing. However, driving in an unsafe car increases your chance of injury, and that of your family. That’s not coercion, those are consequences - which don’t seem to work all the time.
Not everyone who owns land is rich. Not everyone who owns land is even close to it. I own a parcel of land in New Mexico which I inherited from my father who more or less got ripped off, but not badly enough to get his money back. Now this land, at the corner of Cactus and Cactus, is hardly in danger of catching fire, but I’m not exactly an involved landowner. We’ve had it for about 45 years, maybe in another 45 it will be worth something.
Some fires in California start when people light cooking fires in dry season. That is stupid, but not evil. Will our landowner also have to fence and patrol his property?
But we don’t assume that people will pay out of the goodness of their hearts. If the chance of getting caught when you don’t pay is 1 out of 1,000, what do you think the payment rate would be?
Let me try again. Our homeowner, B, reasons that if there is a fire, his house will only get burned if neighbor A’s house will burn. If A is responsible, and takes protective measures, our homeowner’s house is protected for no cost. If A takes these measures and both houses still burn, then our friend is out, but out less than if he paid also. If A doesn’t take protective measures, B may or many not take them himself, since he might figure that if there is a fire and As house burns the chances of his house burning are greater.
Yes, this is sounding like prisoner’s dilemma, isn’t it? A may pay to fix his house, but may be resentful of B freeloading if he does. Say the expected value of him protecting his house is negative, but of protecting both houses is positive. In that case if B doesn’t contribute both houses may be lost, but if B does they may both be saved.
If you consider lots of houses, you get government, perhaps mildly coercive since few people will make this kind of calculation.
No, the fire might originate elsewhere and be stopped at his land.
Coercive fire laws and inspections force homeowners to eliminate source of fire danger. Businesses also. Do you oppose these? Do you oppose fire exits because the survivors of a fire - or the heirs of those who don’t survive - can sue?
Since the issue is kids, vaccinate or not be admitted to school. If there was a deadly disease, then maybe prison, but we don’t really have that issue now. The penalty should match the crime, and the impact of adults not getting measles vaccines is not that great.
Fire services, police services, health services, defense services - well, sure. If there was no chance of being sent to prison if you don’t pay taxes (kind of like Greece, I understand) what do you think would happen?
Aha! If the choice was only about your risk, then I agree. If a disease only would kill you, and not spread, and you promise not to charge me for your treatment, go ahead and refuse vaccination. The problem is that the refuser infects other people, including some too young to be vaccinated and some others for which it doesn’t work.
Some historical background. (No, I’m not going to bother with the Libertarian fol-de-rol.)
Last May, Perry chastized President Obama for “caring” more about tornado victims in Alabama than our Texas wildfires. We were already in the historical drought that continues. And we’d already gotten millions in federal funds to fight the fires. But old “Let’s Secede” Perry was complaining that we weren’t getting enough.
Since then, a budget was pushed through that cut funding in many areas without touching our “Rainy Day” (bad wording) fund.
The drought & the fires have only gotten worse. Since Perry’s on the campaign trail, the Lieutenant Governor has taken over the “bitching about the Feds” role.
This is an interesting statement. How will you get others to agree with it? What if they own land and don’t agree with this statement. They still own the land, and yet they refuse to clear brush. Their brushy land is a hazard to other properties. What will you do about them? And, in the future, how will you prevent people who do not agree that the cost of fire abatement is part of the cost of owning land, from owning land?
Hey! I have an idea! Perhaps when a person buys a piece of land, there will be a fee for fire hazard abatement. That way, they literally cannot afford the land, without affording the cost of brush clearing. The money will go into a pool homeowners can use to hire brush clearing workers or firefighting workers at group rates.
Hm… sounds like taxes funding municipal services, doesn’t it?
By the way, speaking as a recovering Texan, when did things change? Used to be, the governor was about presiding over the Pecan Festival, and Lt. Gov. did all the actual work. Has that changed?
That’s a Rick Perry thing. As recently as Bush, the governors were the traditional figurehead, but since Perry’s been in office for something like 10 years, he’s starting to do things in a rather imperial manner. I suppose he’s built up enough personal power to do things that are outside the enumerated powers of the office.
I’m not a democrat, but that right there is my biggest issue with Perry potentially being elected president; he says one thing about states’ rights, (which I mostly agree with), but historical precedent shows that he concentrates power in himself, which is something I can’t abide with knowingly in a president.
Me and my hundred neighbors can sue that one department for everything it’s got - split 100 ways.