California Considers Placing A Mileage Tax On Drivers

  • Thread starter Thread starter upant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lemuel said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Show me a city where you can opt out of a fire dept tax and I’ll show you a charred ruin.
Click to expand...
I don’t live in a city.
Click to expand...
The principle in not negated by that fact.
 
Lemuel said:
Not really. I can opt in or opt out. That’s a huge difference. It’s the difference between freedom and tyranny.
Click to expand...
OK, I Googled private fire departments (I really should be working, but I find this very interesting)


http://www.firehouse.com/article/12106427/can-the-american-fire-service-be-privatized
https://www.wildfirex.com/private-firefighting/

I’m not sure how I feel about this, because private fire departments (while apparently working today) failed in the past.

Granted, back in the 19th century, we had far less regulations. Perhaps a well regulated private fire prevention industry could do a good job. But I’m not sure.

If I lived where there was a private fire department, I would want to know that every fire gets put out, even people who don’t subscribe. This could be easily accomplished by creating a mandate that if anyone does not subscribe to fire protection they will be fined or billed a larger fee if/when the fire company arrives.

For example: in the NYT article, this one town has a $20 per year subscription fee for fire service. But if someone doesn’t have coverage, they are billed $500 for putting a fire out (after out cry from people after the fire department let one house and 2 business burn down because they didn’t pay).

BTW - I wouldn’t really call this “PRIVATE FIRE PROTECTION,” I would consider this “government outsourcing” - which in the long run also scares me, because typically the govt is forced to accept the lowest bidder, not necessarily the best value.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
The “unfettered liberty” model breaks down completely when you get people tight enough together where their decisions immediately affect other people
Click to expand...
Trust me, I get it. So many people can’t get on with their lives unless they are getting their jollies controlling everyone else.
 
Lemuel said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
The “unfettered liberty” model breaks down completely when you get people tight enough together where their decisions immediately affect other people
Click to expand...
Trust me, I get it. So many people can’t get on with their lives unless they are getting their jollies controlling everyone else.
Click to expand...
No, it’s about limiting the selfish destruction of other people.

That’s why we have rules.
 
Lemuel said:
Who’s advocating hurting anyone?
Click to expand...
It’s a by-product of over-emphasizing on liberty.

When you’re “free” to not carry insurance on your car and thus can’t restore the damage you cause in an automobile accident, you’ve harmed someone.

The law exists to force you to carry that insurance against your will so you can’t accidentally hurt someone without having something to give them in recompense.
 
Vonsalza said:
When you’re “free” to not carry insurance on your car and thus can’t restore the damage you cause in an automobile accident, you’ve harmed someone.
Click to expand...
If you harm someone you are responsible for the damage. I don’t need mommy government to tell me that.
 
People forget that the hefty state AND federal “per gallon” tax is, in essence, a mileage tax on drivers.

The government (and bureaucrats) and progressives benefit by having taxes widely dissipated into the food chain, so that it takes herculean effort simply to tally up the cost of the government to the average person.

They like to separate our wallet from our vote.
 
Public fire departments aren’t there, ultimately, for you. Their task is to keep a fire from wiping out two square blocks. Which is what used to happen. Perhaps you live in the Montana badlands on your own land drilling your own wells and growing your own food or whatever nobody-helps-me-live situation you might be in. But that isn’t going to work for the majority of people. Fire departments are public utilities to protect the community from fires that a landowner can’t fight on their own, for whatever reason.
 
Private fire departments do it better at less cost. The mentality of needing mommy government to do everything for us is astonishing.
 
You just said in this thread “if I don’t pay my fire department, my neighbors all line up for a weenie roast”.

How is this doing it better?
 
Because I have the freedom to choose. Freedom includes the right to be stupid.
 
Sure sure. Nobody is denying that. But then when your neighbors are all lined up for the weenie roast, and the fire skips the trees and spreads down the street… Don’t you see? Or when that fire breaks out in the low-income housing area, and NOBODY has paid their fire bill, it all goes up in ashes.

I’m super glad you’re living a life where you can take care of yourself. I know how hard someone has to work to do that. But there are too many people who can’t - through their own faults, or not. Something like fire departments are a practical protection for the community as a whole. Not just a single person or family.

I mean, maybe this private fire department idea can be made to work for people who can’t afford it? I don’t know. I’m not a civil engineer or whatever else would study that. But I do know I’ve got no problem whatsoever paying my share to keep the community safer. Even if it’s not my house that ever burns up.
 
Last edited:
Rhubarb said:
Something like fire departments are a practical protection for the community as a whole. Not just a single person or family.
Click to expand...
I think fire departments are great. I think they are necessary. I never said otherwise. I just don’t agree with the notion that the government does it better. I am a civil engineer by trade. I design streets, water, sewer, storm drains, and all kinds of infrastructure. In my 35 years of experience, I have never seen one instance where government did a better, or even as good of a job at building infrastructure and at a much greater cost. I’ll always choose private over public. Government is a failed monopoly.
 
Rhubarb said:
I mean, maybe this private fire department idea can be made to work for people who can’t afford it?
Click to expand...
My in-laws live four miles down the street in the City limits. They are forced to pay for the City owned fire department. They pay more than I do and the only thing they get that I don’t is that their fire engines are a bit shinier and their firemen drive fancier cars.
 
I’m sure you know better than I do that end of it all. And I would need to dig out a lot of materials to study public vs. private work. It seems plausible, sure. In fact I’ve always been in favor of government giving bonuses to workers who increase efficiency and decrease waste.

But I also think that there should be a safety net - some level of basic services that are guaranteed to everyone.
 
Rhubarb said:
But I also think that there should be a safety net - some level of basic services that are guaranteed to everyone.
Click to expand...
The only way you get that is to force people to pay for services that they don’t want or don’t need.

The other way is prison. Go there and you will get the basic services that you need.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top