Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/9/10 09:35 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Poxy already addressed that/. The state workers are running under a freemarket style system.

So do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; yet are ironically the most failed financial institutions in the country and were most opposed by free market thinkers and individuals.

Did Mises support Fannie and Freddie?
Did Ron Paul support Fannie and Freddie?
Did Peter Schiff support Fannie and Freddie?
Did Austrian School Economists support Fannie and Freddie?

No?

So, once again, proving that you and Pox are morons.

At 10/9/10 12:56 PM, Memorize wrote: Did Mises support Fannie and Freddie?
Did Ron Paul support Fannie and Freddie?
Did Peter Schiff support Fannie and Freddie?
Did Austrian School Economists support Fannie and Freddie?

No?

So, once again, proving that you and Pox are morons.

What? Elaborate please, I've tried to make sense of your post but I have no idea what your point is.

At 10/9/10 01:02 PM, Gorgonof wrote:
What? Elaborate please, I've tried to make sense of your post but I have no idea what your point is.

I believe he may be saying that not everything free market is supported by free market thinkers. He seems to be saying free market failures were not supported by people who support free market, so free market thinkers did not support privatized fire departments. Which somehow makes you stupid, I dunno.

I think this is a case of the rules of the issue kind of suck, and everyone thinks they should make an exception, except for the people that say an exception is bad precedent. No ones really right no matter what or wrong no matter what. I dunno, maybe they could charge you double firefighter taxes the next 5 years if you didn't pay it but need the services. Something that doesn't leave you totally screwed.

At 10/9/10 05:05 PM, TheSongSalad wrote:

I believe he may be saying that not everything free market is supported by free market thinkers.

Uh... wow. No.

I'm saying that the most consistently free market oriented individuals were opposed to the Government operating in the Private Sector to begin with.

This entire discussion is typical of idiots like Poxpower.

Demand the Government institutions operate in the Private Sector based on some "moral need" (such as Mortgages with Freddie and Fannie since everyone has a right to a home and all that). Then when it fails (as it always does), rather than blame the Government for meddling or giving credit to those people who predicted that Government meddling would cause this outcome; they instead blame the free market for the simple fact that the Government operated a Government business in the Free Market.

And now thanks to those same mentally ill people like Poxpower, the poor are in even worse conditions now than they would have been.

Assholes.

What would be the difference if there where 3 competing firefighting companies and the state didn't handle it at all? What was stopping the guy from hiring a private company to put out the fire? You're entirely missing the point that under a free market people struggling to make ends meet will be screwed over, because they can't afford to pay for essential goods and services.

At 10/10/10 03:36 AM, Gorgonof wrote: What would be the difference if there where 3 competing firefighting companies and the state didn't handle it at all? What was stopping the guy from hiring a private company to put out the fire? You're entirely missing the point that under a free market people struggling to make ends meet will be screwed over, because they can't afford to pay for essential goods and services.

So how are all those poor people who bought houses they couldn't afford through Fannie and Freddie when the Government pushed home ownership doing?

At 10/10/10 04:12 AM, Memorize wrote: So how are all those poor people who bought houses they couldn't afford through Fannie and Freddie when the Government pushed home ownership doing?

As far as I can tell you're equating government run services that our society depends with the government pushing people to buy things they can't afford, do I need to explain why this comparison fails?

At 10/10/10 04:23 AM, Gorgonof wrote:

As far as I can tell you're equating government run services that our society depends with the government pushing people to buy things they can't afford, do I need to explain why this comparison fails?

Shall I explain how you're a fucking idiot?

At 10/6/10 02:49 AM, poxpower wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJyjNiL4z Zg&feature=sub

Each year, residents of this county must pay 75$ to get "fire protection".
That guy didn't.

So there you go, house burned down to the ground.

FREE MARKET AT WORK.
I'm sure those firefighters are some of the most cost efficient around! WOOHOO!

My intake on this story. . .

Firefighters letting a house burn in flames just because residents did not pay a $75 for "fire protection", something is *seriously wrong* with that picture, because if a person dials 911 for the Fire Department to put out a fire, the Firefighters are suppost to come to the area and put the fire out before the fire itself goes very out of control.

It's likely that corruption is at work, because those firefighters simply should of put the fires out because if the fires alone where to go out of control then things will simply go from bad to worse.

In any case, this is one of those things that simply should not happen ever again, for if those corrupt-firefighters within that area ever allow something like that to happen again then the fire alone may spread beyond, in other words, a serious problem.

At 10/10/10 06:28 AM, Thecrazyman wrote: My intake on this story. . .

Firefighters letting a house burn in flames just because residents did not pay a $75 for "fire protection", something is *seriously wrong* with that picture, because if a person dials 911 for the Fire Department to put out a fire, the Firefighters are suppost to come to the area and put the fire out before the fire itself goes very out of control.

The area that these people lived in doesn't have a fire department. They were borrowing the neighboring area.

It's likely that corruption is at work, because those firefighters simply should of put the fires out because if the fires alone where to go out of control then things will simply go from bad to worse.

Why couldn't you just get some more information instead of making up bullshit claims about corruption?

In any case, this is one of those things that simply should not happen ever again, for if those corrupt-firefighters within that area ever allow something like that to happen again then the fire alone may spread beyond, in other words, a serious problem.

So now it went from "likely corrupt" to "those corrupt-firefighters". I guess it's established fact now since you made it up.

At 10/10/10 12:10 AM, Memorize wrote: And now thanks to those same mentally ill people like Poxpower, the poor are in even worse conditions now than they would have been.

except that in the case of the firefighters, the system was complete crap first. Are you honestly suggesting that privatized firefighters worked better back in the 1800s?

At 10/6/10 05:24 AM, Drakim wrote: Pox is right.

If this was extortion mafia style, then it would also be extortion for hospitals to not give you treatment even if you can't pay for it. Pay up the monthly insurance fee or we will not help you when you get an "accident". The food stores would also be the mafia. They would literary watch you starve to death because you can't pay for your food. No money, no food.

What you describe is not extortion mafia style or any other style. What mafia style extorition would be is if they offered to pay you protection from them coming over and robbing your place.

So for a fire department to extort they would have to come over and demand protection money. Then when you don't give them the cash...they come over and start a fire in your garage.

Same thing with healthcare: the doctors or insurance companies would have to come over and make you sick if you don't.

Instead what you describe is a service provider (most notably in terms of healthcare) being forced to give his services for free or a radically reduced wage. What you describe is prostitution at best and slavery at worst.

(personally I'm not a fan of privatizing life essential things like firefighting and healthcare) But don't make up bullshit about how this isn't the free market.

Sorry but Poxy is not right. See this isn't the free market at work. The fire department in this case was not a private organization. Instead it was a governmental agency demanding a fee for service.

Which is totally fucked up. To have the firedepartment come in the event of fire is something you pay property and sales taxes to local governments to provide. If they are demanding a yearly fee for such a basic service then this is not an example of the free market failing...but government failing as well.

Once you look beyond the emotional argument present by TYT...you see Poxy's argument defeats itself.

At 10/10/10 04:15 PM, TheSongSalad wrote:

At 10/10/10 12:10 AM, Memorize wrote: And now thanks to those same mentally ill people like Poxpower, the poor are in even worse conditions now than they would have been.

except that in the case of the firefighters, the system was complete crap first. Are you honestly suggesting that privatized firefighters worked better back in the 1800s?

At least for the vast majority of the 1800's, we didn't have a central bank dealing special favors to friends while devaluing the currency thereby screwing over the working class.

But seriously, you're going to compare the 1800's to the year 2010?

You really are an idiot.

At 10/10/10 08:26 PM, Memorize wrote:
At least for the vast majority of the 1800's, we didn't have a central bank dealing special favors to friends while devaluing the currency thereby screwing over the working class.

Regardless if it was a better time for honest bankers, I'm not really sure how that applies.

But seriously, you're going to compare the 1800's to the year 2010?

You really are an idiot.

Don't bother with the insults, please, I'm just trying to have a discussion, not a flame war. Anyway, I think the fact that privatized firefighting didn't work in the 1800s was why the government interfered in the industry. If it didn't work then, there's nothing to suggest it would work now. I just feel that there's some things you can't leave to the chance of free market, which is why they are government run. If there was some other impartial party to run it, go ahead and suggest it.

At 10/10/10 04:34 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 10/10/10 04:23 AM, Gorgonof wrote:

As far as I can tell you're equating government run services that our society depends with the government pushing people to buy things they can't afford, do I need to explain why this comparison fails?

Shall I explain how you're a fucking idiot?

Let's make this VERY simple for you.

Firefighting = social service
Mortgage and financing loand operation = private service

When the government is fighting fires it is a public organization working toward a public need. When the government begins to work with certain loans and mortgages and such, it is a public entity working in the private sector.

So, back to the point. This was a PUBLIC organization, performing a PUBLIC need, following a PRIVATE model. This is nothing like Mae or Mac. The only similarity between this and Mac is that the government was involved.

Commence with your subpar, miguided, and insult filled retort. It would be nice if you were actually up to the task of actually trying to debate the issue...

At 10/9/10 11:07 AM, satanbrain wrote: less effort but more resources.

What are you going on about? What kind of imbecile are you who can't grasp the simple fact that putting out one fire is easier than putting out two?

they are paid to stop fires, not to stop detriments.

You're a fucking moron. I hope a rocket falls on your house.

Someone should make a campaign urging the fellow man's neighbors to NOT PAY the $75 as well. Why support such a cold-hearted firefighter company? The man begged and was willing to pay the $75 but the firefighters didn't want the cash anymore... that's just pure bullshit from these lazy servicemen.

Also regarding Free Market debate, you guys do realize that the word is an oxymoron. There is nothing free in markets. So if you ever paid for something, that's not "free" market.

At 10/11/10 08:29 AM, chairmankem wrote:

At 10/9/10 11:07 AM, satanbrain wrote: less effort but more resources.

What are you going on about? What kind of imbecile are you who can't grasp the simple fact that putting out one fire is easier than putting out two?

One fire is bigger than two small fires, the rest of the fire will fade because the firing is not unlimited.

they are paid to stop fires, not to stop detriments.

You're a fucking moron. I hope a rocket falls on your house.

Am i wrong?