Liberal Elitists mocking people from the rural heartland

Page 3 of 4 [ 51 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

10 Oct 2010, 12:56 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Chevand wrote:

I agree with Orwell. The man's house was burning down, and could quite easily have been saved. Screw the notion of "free riding"-- bottom line is, protection from fire is one of those essential public services provided by the government, that ought not be denied to anyone. Was the man at fault for not paying the fee? Yes. But privatizing the system in the first place, and then denying access to essential protective services over a matter of money, is atrocious. Why do we have a government in the first place, if not to serve and protect the people? I'm not advocating "freeloading". I know public services aren't free-- but that's why we've always had taxes. At the very least, police, fire, and military protection should be mandatorily provided services, paid for by non-optional taxes (so that people won't "forget" or refuse), and provided to the people without fail (and I personally believe in the same sort of thing in regards to healthcare, but I know that's wishful thinking on my part). Not everything is intended to be run like a freaking business. What kind of society are we, when we value the most efficient business model over people's lives?

Besides which-- maybe I'm totally off-base here, but it seems to me the whole concept of a local fire department funded on a subscriptional basis would violate some sort of law against monopolies. There's no one else who can really provide the same service...

Fine. Then the FD should have put the fire out and handed him the bill for the -entire cost- of the operation which he should be required to pay or lose his house. But he should not be getting the service for -free- just because he needs it. Pretty soon everyone will expecting free food which will destroy the incentive to do useful work.

ruveyn

Your Slippery Slope argument doesn't work too well when the government already gives out free food in the form of food stamps yet nobody quits their job to get them. Maybe because they want to keep on drinking soda.

Wisguy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 585
Location: Appleton, WI USA

10 Oct 2010, 1:32 pm

Janissy wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Chevand wrote:

But those who get food stamps (a service of the USA's federal government) live within the jurisdiction that is providing that benefit (the borders of the USA). This guy actively chose to live in a place without fire protection service of any kind, in large part because the local taxes are much cheaper there, and a nearby incorporated city (where its residents and property owners enjoy that service as a right due to their paying a higher rate of taxes to the city) though the goodness of its heart agrees to provide that service to non-residents who agree to pay an annual fee to cover the cost of that service. Otherwise, it's 'we'll rescue someone from the building, but otherwise you're on your own".

No sympathies from me here.

Mike

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

10 Oct 2010, 1:53 pm

Questions of this being a public service or not are also moot. None of that is relevant. If a man's home is burning down and you can do something about it, then you do unless you are a worthless piece of scum.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

10 Oct 2010, 1:59 pm

Janissy wrote:

He obviously has never actually known anyone who lives independently on government assistence alone. It sucks.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Oct 2010, 2:00 pm

Orwell wrote:

What if it is the home of one's mortal enemy?

What if my worst enemy is drowning? Should I save him, even at no risk to myself?

ruveyn

Tensu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,661
Location: Nixa, MO, USA

10 Oct 2010, 2:05 pm

ruveyn wrote:

What if it is the home of one's mortal enemy?

What if my worst enemy is drowning? Should I save him, even at no risk to myself?

ruveyn

Yes.

DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

10 Oct 2010, 2:23 pm

ruveyn wrote:

What if my worst enemy is drowning? Should I save him, even at no risk to myself?

How evil is he?

_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/

Chevand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jul 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 580
Location: Vancouver, BC

10 Oct 2010, 2:35 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Orwell wrote:

What if it is the home of one's mortal enemy?

What if my worst enemy is drowning? Should I save him, even at no risk to myself?

ruveyn

No, go ahead and watch him die, if you think you can live with the knowledge that you were complicit in a person's death. Just don't expect anyone to lift a finger to save you if you're ever drowning.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Oct 2010, 4:09 pm

Chevand wrote:

I would not lose a minutes sleep. And I don't expect anyone to sacrifice their interests for mine.

"I swearùby my life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

ruveyn

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Oct 2010, 5:30 am

wavefreak58 wrote:

The only thing this incident proves is that money turns people into ass holes. The homeowner was an ass for not paying the $75 and the fire department was an ass for letting $75 prevent them from doing the right thing.

Money is a medium of exchange. It means goods and services have trade value. Which further implies that the time people spend in making goods or rendering services has trade value. If your opinion were true, then the time people spend in making goods and services available is worthless, in which case why should they provide goods and services at all?

ruveyn

Dr_Horrible
Snowy Owl

Joined: 9 Oct 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 151

11 Oct 2010, 7:47 am

Master_Pedant wrote:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jrWEdeGGvw&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Typical tasteless liberal elitists. Mocking people from the rural South who have sufered misfortune, in a faux rural accent to top it all off.*

Glenn Beck and his weaselly little sidekick Pat Gray are real class acts. It's pretty funny, also, that they don't seem to understand that NOT putting out a given fire is quite dangerous as fires spread (as that fire did).

*FOR THE HUMOUR IMPAIRED: Glenn Beck & Pat Gray are ultraconservatives. My use of "liberal elitist" is ironic.

Beck... *sigh*

Well, for Non-americans, he would pass off as a comedian. His humour sucks, but nevertheless...

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

11 Oct 2010, 9:39 am

Orwell wrote:

That kind of idealistic thinking only works in a world that has an abundance of most everything and nothing costs anything.

I have no duty to solve your problems for you. I have no duty to put at risk my life, health, property or wealth to help you.

This is why property takes help pay for a service that benefits everyone. You must pay the tax, but it's small and allows a service to be there for everyone. You chose a path that exempts you from paying the tax, you don't deserve the benefit you paid for.

Let's add on developments that (1) this is not the first time the guy had a fire and didn't pay the fee. That time, they came out, put out the fire and expressly told him that if it happened again, it was his tough luck. Also (2) this fire was caused by the property owner STARTING a fire then leaving it unattended...which is why his home caught fire.

Sorry. Zero sympathy for the guy. He wanted the benefit without having to pay the price, and he lost his home not for their inaction but because of his own stupidity and greed.

phil777
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

11 Oct 2010, 11:06 am

I always give the benefit of the doubt the first time -.- i'll help then.

If the person fools me a second time, no dice.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

11 Oct 2010, 11:13 am

zer0netgain wrote:

Orwell wrote:

But does a guy that just lost everything deserve to be mocked on national television? How does greed have anything to do with this?

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

26 Nov 2010, 11:27 pm

Don't worry, folks, for every liberal elitist like the first video there's also a charitable, conservative everyman willing to help the poor fellow out.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71f6B0AqZAU[/youtube]

_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

26 Nov 2010, 11:28 pm

zer0netgain wrote:

Orwell wrote:

You're type of "tough love" thinking only works in a world where fires DON'T SPREAD.

_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/

Page 3 of 4 [ 51 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Liberal Elitists mocking people from the rural heartland Post Reply New Topic

Liberal Elitists mocking people from the rural heartland