Grafton ... top story

[Lex]

I agree with you.  I would think that this service might be grouped into a basic fire and property protection service.   It might be someting the company would do to make their fire fighting more efficient.  I would say that permits would be too.  People who disagree with company policy might just stop paying.

In bigger cities it's a lot easier to have private ambulances and fire departments. In fact, there are a lot of private ambulance services all throughout the country, I think there is even one in Hanover. There are probably private fire departments out there as well. In fact, when I took my Fire Fighter I course, we had a chapter on history of the fire service and it talked about how initially it was all private fire departments but it didn't work too well, some of the reasons they gave didn't seem reasonable to me though. If someone is interested, I can find the relevant section of the book and type up the paragraph.

The problem in Grafton is that there just isn't enough volume to make it as a business. The only way you would be able to do it is through subscription if you got enough people to subscribe but trying to sustain yourself on getting payout from insurance companies is not practical. In fact, we are trying to do this right now with the Ambulance department and there just aren't enough calls.

The problem with these services is that they have a large operating cost. You need a place to store the fire engines and to maintain them and to buy a new one when the old one needs to be replaced. You have to put gas into them, you have electric and heating bills, the engines have thousands of gallons of water in them if they stay outside in the winter time the water will freeze and you can't fight fire with a frozen water tank. And then of course if you go private you'd have to pay people. The current station operates on roughly $20,000 a year without paying anyone, also that figure doesn't include the separate warrant article to put money into a new vehicle fund so that in 10 years we could replace the oldest engine. We're also sharing a building with the Ambulance department so that saves some of the electric/heating costs.

The only way out of this that I can think of is if someone comes up with alternative technologies for fighting fires that have a much lower overhead but are just as effective as the current system in the eyes of prospective customers. The Grafton Fire Department has been looking into such technologies and recently purchased several of these gadgets that you can throw into a burning room and it will devour the fire: DSPA-5 - DSPA Chokes the Life Out of Fire! But this technology will not work if the fire has spread beyond the room and has started to engulf the entire house (you could still use it but you will have to follow up with traditional methods of using water to finish it off). It's a move in the right direction though.

Someone could start a private first responder fire service and be the first responder with these fire suppressing devices, there are several companies that make them. Of course there is the issue of also knowing what you're doing and having the proper safety equipment and training. You don't want to be opening the door on a burning building/room wearing your shorts and t-shirt to throw one of these things into a room... Anyways, I'm tangenting now.

[Lex]

I have never asked anyone for their fire permit nor have I ever insisted someone get one. The only time I would suggest a fire permit is if someone explicitly does not want to get hassled.

Getting a fire permit does not explicitly mean that you won't be hassled (getting the permit is a hassle) You've said that people will get hassled anyway. Even after they beg for permission to have a fire.

A few of the calls that we've gotten for unpermitted burns where the person did have a permit is because the person issuing the permit didn't have a chance to submit the permit to Hanover dispatch yet.

So you'll be hassled 2 times if you get a permit and 1 time if you don't get a permit.

As an added bonus of not getting a permit you can show the world that the NH libertarian gubernatorial candidate is a authoritarian control freak that believes the government needs to be bigger, if Mike wants to be free to have a weenie fire and that politicos, even the libertarians are corrupted with a little power.

You can always try it both ways (do it one way one year and another way the next year) and see which works best for you!

[thinkliberty]

In bigger cities it's a lot easier to have private ambulances and fire departments....

The problem in Grafton is that there just isn't enough volume to make it as a business. The only way you would be able to do it is through subscription if you got enough people to subscribe but trying to sustain yourself on getting payout from insurance companies is not practical. In fact, we are trying to do this right now with the Ambulance department and there just aren't enough calls.

The problem with these services is that they have a large operating cost...

The problem with these services is the violence that is currently being used to provide them.

If you want fire and ambulatory services like the big cities have then you'll have to move to a big city, where these service make economic sense and can be provided without violence.

[Lex]

I did not favor or condone force against peaceful people.

So you have never or would never forcefully put someone's camp fire out like Babiarz?

In my 3 years on the department I have never forcefully put out someones camp fire. I have put out "camp fires" where the fire spread beyond the pit but in all of those cases the land owners were eager to have it put out and were usually the ones to call it in.

There are cases where I would put out a fire forcefully but only if it's pretty obvious that the fire is out of control. By "out of control" I mean that there is no way that a garden hose plus fire extinguisher would be able to put it out AND the fire is starting to spread or has a very high chance of spreading. It doesn't make sense to me to sit and wait until the fire gets to the nearby properties before doing anything because by then it may be out of the fire fighters control as well. I don't think this is unreasonable but maybe someone could enlighten me.

I guess my analogy would be if your neighbor wasn't really sure what he/she was doing and decided to build an atomic bomb, I would be a worried. I would try to convince them that they should learn how to do it properly (them gaining control of the situation) or I will try and forcefully stop them out of self preservation.

According to the video that I saw of the incident at Mikes I don't think there was even a fire there, it looked like just coals when it was put out.

[Lex]

The problem with these services is the violence that is currently being used to provide them.

It is not just a problem with these services, it is a problem with ALL government services. This is an important distinction because I see "anarchists" constantly picking services which they like the least (or just don't care about) and only concentrating on those but ignoring ones that they use.

There are all of these threads about people having problems on government roads, getting pulled over by vehicles with christmas lights, etc. Yet I haven't seen too many comments like "why don't you stop using the public roads". Public roads are maintained by government services. I haven't seen any protests at a town road department asking those guys how they can live knowing they are being paid stolen money.

I'm not encouraging people to do this by the way, just pointing out the hypocrisy of quietly using some services and loudly berating others. The problem is the FORCE not the SERVICE (at least philosophically speaking, there could of course be problems in practice with how a particular service is implemented, but that's a different discussion).

A fire and ambulance department is useful just as roads are. Even if you directly did not use the fire services it's likely that without the service a neighbors fire several houses down from yours may have traveled all the way to your house without proper equipment and man power to deal with it.

Instead of personally attacking the fire department and fire department members it makes more sense to work on eliminating the parts of the system that are dependent on force. Because once the force part is eliminated the fire department will still be there, the people will still be there and the equipment will still be there. I think it's simple minded to just blindly say that the fire department as a whole is the initiation of force and thus must be eliminated. The only "force" part is the financing and a few laws that pertain to permits. There is nothing inherent in the fire department that makes it bad, get rid of taxes and fund it via subscription and the fire department will be the same building, the same equipment and probably the same people still doing the same job, namely putting out fires and rescuing people and property in a variety of harmful situations. We respond to vehicle accidents and are trained and have equipment to cut people out of mangled cars, we do road traffic when there are downed powerlines until the power company gets there, etc.

It's easy to twist what I say to make it look like I condone violence and to find ways to discredit John and make him look on par with Mulholland but what do any of these things achieve? You can go on these witch hunts until only the so called "pure" anarchists are left, then what?

Don't forget that this whole incident was initiated by a cop outside Grafton. He initiated the force by barging onto Mikes property and demanding that the fire be put out. The point is that if we eliminate the fire department in Grafton we are still not free, the same cop will just call in the state troopers and another out of town fire department. If that out of town cop never drove by Mikes property this incident would have never happened.

[AntonLee]

I'm not sure anyone has a problem with people who choose to fight fires as a profession, much like most don't have a problem who choose to open a garden nursery. 

[thinkliberty]

The problem with these services is the violence that is currently being used to provide them.

It is not just a problem with these services, it is a problem with ALL government services. ... I haven't seen any protests at a town road department asking those guys how they can live knowing they are being paid stolen money.

I'm not encouraging people to do this by the way, just pointing out the hypocrisy of quietly using some services and loudly berating others.

Some people who are being paid with stolen money are more aggressive than others. Which is why you hear more about one than the others.

It's impossible to list all the people who receive stolen money, so we start with the most violent.

Instead of personally attacking the fire department and fire department members it makes more sense to work on eliminating the parts of the system that are dependent on force.

I agree that it makes sense to work on eliminating your part of the system.

If you are working with equipment that's been purchased with stolen money, then you are part of the system that is dependent on force that we all need to work to eliminate.

I don't have a favorite, I think we need to end *all* services and systems that are dependent on force.

Don't forget that this whole incident was initiated by a cop outside Grafton.

Lets not forget who polluted Mike's property with chemicals. It was a NH libertarian, gubernatorial candidate , fire marshal over-reacting because an illegitimate authoritarian in a costume -- from outside of Grafton -- said he should aggress against Mike.

The point is that if we eliminate the fire department in Grafton we are still not free, the same cop will just call in the state troopers and another out of town fire department.

The point is that if we have to eliminate *every* coercive department, if we are to be free.   

[KBCraig]

Of course he was unhappy, because he was there unnecessarily. And he knew it. He didn't get toned out by the eagle eyes in the fire tower; his evening was interrupted because the fire warden and Merle and Babiarz had a collective hard-on over a piece of paper, and couldn't open their eyes and see that there was no fire danger there that would be solved by a piece of magical fookin' paper.

Bob should have been unhappy with those three, not with Mike and Russell.

Did Bob tell you he was unhappy with Mike and Russell?

I don't know Bob. You were the one who said he was unhappy to be there. I'm clarifying who he should be unhappy with.

[Lex]

I don't know Bob. You were the one who said he was unhappy to be there. I'm clarifying who he should be unhappy with.

I did not say he was unhappy to be there. What is it with you guys and twisting words around. Here is my exact quote:

Just saying that some of us don't like being there unnecessarily. I didn't respond to the call to your place but I saw Bob in the video and he didn't look too happy to be there. I don't want you to think that all fire fighters like going to peoples houses and putting out their cooking coals 

To suggest that I or anyone else know how Bob is feeling without asking him would be irrational since we cannot get inside his head and measure his feelings. That is why I specifically said looked instead of was. I did not even attempt to suggest why or with whom or what he looked unhappy with, I cannot know that since I have not spoken to him on this subject. All I know is that he was in the video and he did not look particularly excited about being there.

My comment was merely based on my observation and it is up to interpretation. I think you took my comment too far by suggesting whom he was unhappy with or even suggesting whom he should or shouldn't be unhappy with. Suggesting to people the right or wrong way to feel I think is a bit ridiculous.

I did not realize some of you were in the business of telling people how to feel. But if you do this chronically, I highly recommend this book:



It is more geared towards victims of this kind of behavior but still useful for those trying to stop practicing controlling behavior.

Suggesting to someone what feelings are appropriate for them to have is classic controlling behavior.

[Lex]

The point is that if we have to eliminate *every* coercive department, if we are to be free.

You need to convince the general public that eliminating government force is a good idea. Doing it by attacking the fire department is not going to win the hearts and minds of your neighbors.

The fire department is all volunteer, John does not get paid, I do not get paid and Bob does not get paid, and none of the other fire fighters get paid either and neither does anyone on the Ambulance department. We don't get any kind of reimbursement for gas or expenses incurred in responding to calls. It costs us money to volunteer. We do it so that taxes stay low. The same reason that Bob bid on the mowing job even though his time is more valuable doing other things.

The result of this is immediate gains when it comes to property taxes and if one day property taxes are eliminated completely all of the departments are already operating at the lowest level of expenditures we could come up with so switching to ulterior funding sources will be easier than if we all quit and let someone with a more liberal mindset run the department and double the budget every year.

As I said a while ago in another thread, the problem with the strategy of getting people to quit is that there is always someone worse to take their place.

Also, some people would argue that Gandhi replaced evil rule with even more evil rule and in the end created much more human suffering.

That is the problem with a completely bottom up approach. As soon as the local thugs got into power Gandhi became irrelevent. The same will happen here once you guilt trip all of the liberty minded bureaucrats out of office.

[thinkliberty]

The point is that if we have to eliminate *every* coercive department, if we are to be free.

You need to convince the general public that eliminating government force is a good idea.
....
As I said a while ago in another thread, the problem with the strategy of getting people to quit is that there is always someone worse to take their place.

Classic statist response. You feel like you need to rob people, because other people will rob me if YOU don't.

I guess I should just start stealing my neighbors things to pay for the things that I want, if I don't do it someone else who is worst than I am will steal those things.

Or I could protect my neighbors from everyone that might try to steal from them. Even people like you in your fire department, who want fire engines so they can  put out other people's weenie roasts with them.

We all saw the video where your fire engine was used by your volunteer fire department to aggress against another person.   I haven't seen an apology from your fire department. Is one coming?

How many people were extorted to pay for that fire engine?

How many homes would your fire department have stolen from people? (if they didn't give into extortion for that fire engine.)

Eliminating government force *is* a good idea. isn't it?

[tony]

Eliminating government force *is* a good idea. isn't it?

Yes it is. And how you propose to do it?

[KBCraig]

I don't know Bob. You were the one who said he was unhappy to be there. I'm clarifying who he should be unhappy with.

I did not say he was unhappy to be there. What is it with you guys and twisting words around. Here is my exact quote:

Just saying that some of us don't like being there unnecessarily. I didn't respond to the call to your place but I saw Bob in the video and he didn't look too happy to be there.

You're right, that's completely different.

[thinkliberty]

Eliminating government force *is* a good idea. isn't it?

Yes it is. And how you propose to do it?

There are hundreds of thousands of ways to do it, pick the one(s) that work the best and are the easiest for you to do.

Reach out to people who have been abused by the government. Support and protect your neighbors and there is a good chance they will support and protect you.

If you haven't moved to NH you could do that. The Free State Project is about eliminating government force by having 20,000 people who oppose government force move to the same geographic location. If you know anyone that opposes government force and does not live in NH you could ask them to move...

[MaineShark]

In fact, when I took my Fire Fighter I course, we had a chapter on history of the fire service and it talked about how initially it was all private fire departments but it didn't work too well, some of the reasons they gave didn't seem reasonable to me though. If someone is interested, I can find the relevant section of the book and type up the paragraph.

Sounds exactly like the indoctrination nonsense about the Constitution being "needed" because the Articles of Confederation "didn't work well."

The problem in Grafton is that there just isn't enough volume to make it as a business. The only way you would be able to do it is through subscription if you got enough people to subscribe but trying to sustain yourself on getting payout from insurance companies is not practical. In fact, we are trying to do this right now with the Ambulance department and there just aren't enough calls.

The problem with these services is that they have a large operating cost. You need a place to store the fire engines and to maintain them and to buy a new one when the old one needs to be replaced. You have to put gas into them, you have electric and heating bills, the engines have thousands of gallons of water in them if they stay outside in the winter time the water will freeze and you can't fight fire with a frozen water tank. And then of course if you go private you'd have to pay people. The current station operates on roughly $20,000 a year without paying anyone, also that figure doesn't include the separate warrant article to put money into a new vehicle fund so that in 10 years we could replace the oldest engine. We're also sharing a building with the Ambulance department so that saves some of the electric/heating costs.

The only way out of this that I can think of is if someone comes up with alternative technologies for fighting fires that have a much lower overhead but are just as effective as the current system in the eyes of prospective customers.

The "prospective customers" are almost exclusively going to be insurance companies.

If I have fire insurance, my insurance company wants to make sure that any fire damage is as minimal as possible.

First of all, they'll probably give me a substantial incentive to install sprinklers and other fire-prevention devices.  That's going to cause a huge reduction in fires, and the resulting costs.

The funds they save by incentivizing pro-active safety measures (and, therefore, not having to pay out on damage claims) can be spent on keeping equipment maintained locations, to further reduce their liability.

To address some of your other points:
There are anti-freeze compounds that can be used to keep water from freezing, even in NH winters, without storing the whole truck in a heated building.  Some are non-toxic.  Others are marginally-toxic, but substantially less-toxic than house fire debris.

There are also diesel-fueled block heaters; it would be trivially-easy to set up a system so, when the call went out, the truck heater was started, so the engine would be ready to fire up by the time the firefighters showed up.

So there's zero need for a heated garage.

I expect you'd still find volunteers, even if it were private.  I also expect that you'd find local businesses chipping in to help support fire protection, because it's an excellent marketing tool.  And, of course, insurance companies could give customers who are also firefighters a discount on their rates.

So there's no reason wages would drive costs up in any substantial way.

Which brings us to the cost of the trucks and other capital equipment.  The immediate note is that, since the companies who build these are marketing to the government, the costs are higher than they would be if the customers were not tax-funded.  So the prices would drop, just based upon that.

Then you have the incentive to develop less-expensive technologies, which currently is very limited.  Just shooting from the hip, but maybe it might make sense to have a trailer-mounted water tank and pump that can be towed around, rather than having a dedicated engine and drivetrain sitting there all the time?  Store it at a shipping company, and they can just hitch it to a spare truck.  Probably much lower cost than owning and maintaining a complete truck, just for the few times a year it's needed.

In rural areas, it might make sense to have a central site and a heavy-lift helicopter, to deliver the equipment within a much wider radius, so the same equipment serves more customers.

That's just a few minutes' brainstorming.  I'm sure that folks who were paid to come up with solutions, would be able to come up with many more.

So, no, there's no reason that the free market couldn't provide these services.

Joe