Grafton ... top story

[Lex]

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

I'm not robbing people, the tax collector is and to a large extent the police when the tax collector tells them you haven't paid. I don't care if you don't pay your taxes thinkliberty. Do you even own any property in Grafton?

I don't handle the budget for the fire department and I don't deal with the town budget committee. If the Grafton fire department went from being funded by the town (money collected through threat of violence) and to a subscription based model, my purpose and activities on the department wouldn't change. My pager would still go off when there is a fire or vehicle accident and I would still respond to the station and go to the scene.

If you don't like the fact that the town is hiring the fire department then you can start a subscription company, collect money voluntarily and then hire out the fire department from the town.

I realize that instead of doing anything you'd rather sit at your computer and tell others how to do things. That's the problem with idealists, you are so out of touch with reality and in your perfect anarcho-capitalist vision that you easily brush away the real problems that exist. The biggest one of which is that YOU DO NOT HAVE SUPPORT OF PEOPLE.

Instead of attacking the people performing the services and asking them to quit (and then be replaced by someone more evil), why don't you talk to your neighbors and town residents and convince them that taxes are bad and what the alternatives are.

You don't like how a product is made so instead of changing the production process you attack the product. It doesn't make any sense.

The strategy that you are proposing: mindless destruction of everything that is remotely connected to government is in my opinion foolish and naive. History has taught us that it doesn't work. Gandhi had tunnel vision when he concentrated purely on getting the British out of Inidia and then when the British were gone he realized his mistake too late, he had spent all of his energies teaching people to resist the Brits and didn't spend anytime teaching them what to do after the Brits left and how to have a free society, so naturally as soon as the Brits left local thugs took over and Gandhi became irrelevant. The same happened in America with the Brits, the colonists kicked them out and then what? The only change was that now taxes were staying in the colonies instead of going to Britain.

You can't break stuff without having a plan for replacement. And by replacement I mean anything that makes sense and is practical, it could be a matter of teaching the people that they don't need a replacement, that is an actionable plan, something that could be done today.

Once you get a lot of people to believe that taxes are bad then the tax collector would simply become irrelevant and services would be funded voluntarily.

To give you some numbers for perspective:

Fire Department Yearly Budget: $20k
  Fire Department Vehicle Fund: $20k
-----------------------------------------------
         Total Yearly Requirement: $40k

Guess at # of Grafton Land Onwers: 500

Divide the yearly requirement by number of land owners: $40,000 / 500 = $80 per year per land owner
To get an idea of how much it would be per month: $80 / 12 = $6.67 per month per land owner

So, there you have it. If you can get 500 people in Grafton to voluntarily subscribe for $6.67 a month you could run the Grafton fire department without funding it with taxes.

The problem is getting people to see your viewpoint.

I'm going to stick to my day job so that I can afford to volunteer at the fire department and as a result keep the costs low. Someone else, who is more ideological and has better people skills and more time on their hands than I do can start a subscription company and hire out the department so that it is not funded with tax dollars.

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

Because of this thread I thought I'd ask how things are handled in other places. I talked with someone in the North Central Massachusetts area that is a volunteer firefighter and he told me that the fire tower on the mountain keeps watch without regard to knowing about a permit or lack thereof. They watch for smoke and (somehow) can tell from the smoke and the way it is what is burning. Houses and rubbish that people shouldn't burn give off different smoke than wood, trees, brush, charcoal, etc.  According to this person, when they spot "wood"-type smoke (his term) in an area that is heavily wooded, they keep an eye on it to see if it 1) moves and 2) grows. Based on that they'll send someone to investigate. Obviously an uncontrolled or wild fire will do one or both of those things pretty quickly, so if the smoke stays the same size/way and doesn't move from a specific spot, they determine that it's a controlled "personal" fire. He did tell me that certain times of the year, specifically when it is extremely dry and there is a high fire danger, that they will send someone "to make sure and if it's a person burning to let them know there's a high fire danger". But, the fire burn alert status (safe, low, med, high) is posted at a number of locations around the area, especially at forests, ranger stations, and sometimes town commons.

Years ago I used to go through the whole thing of getting a burn permit (they're free). But most folks around us have basically stopped doing that because it doesn't really matter to the tower or the volunteer fire departments in the area. They're more concerned with safe burning than with whether you've bowed down to some town official for a piece of paper.

I was burning a LOT of brush about 10 years ago and the fire got REALLY big. The burn was happening in a clearing and we were feeding the fire with new brush using a backhoe and an excavator... That was the only time I've ever gotten a call... It wasn't a visit, it was a call that evening (after we had put things out and stopped for the night). The person said they didn't mind me burning, but could we keep it down because the tower got a little upset seeing flames above the tree-tops!  Truth be told, we had put too much at once on. The rest of the week burning we "moderated" our flow of material into the fire and never heard another word. 

So, my point is that claims that a burn permit are needed for fire personnel don't seem to be "universal".

[Lex]

Here is a suggestion: Someone could put in a warrant article to get rid of burn permits.

[MaineShark]

If you don't like the fact that the town is hiring the fire department then you can start a subscription company, collect money voluntarily and then hire out the fire department from the town.

Really?  And would the town then reduce the taxes of the subscribers?

Or would they just end up paying twice, like those of us who don't send our children to their indoctrination centers?

You're offering a non-workable solution, and complaining because those who realize it isn't workable, don't use it.

Joe

[Lex]

Really?  And would the town then reduce the taxes of the subscribers?

I cannot predict the future and since I will not be the one implementing this I cannot say how it will work. It is between the town and whoever decides to take the time to make this work.

Or would they just end up paying twice, like those of us who don't send our children to their indoctrination centers?

You're offering a non-workable solution, and complaining because those who realize it isn't workable, don't use it.

You've just contradicted yourself. You gave an example where you do pay twice and then said it's unworkable. So, does it work or doesn't it?

I'm not saying it's ideal but it's a path in the right direction. As the case with schools, if enough people took their kids out of public schools there would be more support for not making people pay twice. The same with the fire subscription service. Grafton is a small town, if you can get 500 people to subscribe, that's MORE than the entire voting base (some folks own property here but are residents in other states and thus don't vote). At that point all it would take is a warrant article to remove the fire department expenditure from the budget and it would pass 100% (since every single voter is already subscribed).

As far as I can tell any system that requires someone to do something is unworkable to couch anarchists. The great thing about an idealistic solution where you just say "get rid of it" is that you know it won't happen which means you can just sit on your couch and complain without having to do anything. I wish you luck with your "workable" solution.

[thinkliberty]

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

I'm not robbing people, the tax collector is and to a large extent the police when the tax collector tells them you haven't paid.

You're not robbing people, you just have your tax collector do that for you. Then you use the money that your tax collector extorts from people to buy you the things that you want. You have no problem using that blood money for your fire engine and fire station.

I don't handle the budget for the fire department and I don't deal with the town budget committee.

You do handle the equipment that was purchased with stolen funds. You could refuse to take part in that violence. You could refuse to accept that stolen money. You could refuse to use the equipment that was purchased with that stolen money.

If you don't like the fact that the town is hiring the fire department

I don't like the fact that you are using stolen money. I don't care if the town hires a fire department, if they aren't using stolen money to do it.

I realize that instead of doing anything you'd rather sit at your computer and tell others how to do things.

I'll do something and personally stop you, if you really want me to. (but I don't think you really want that.) How would you like me to stop you from accepting stolen goods?

I'll start by *telling* you to stop accepting blood money. Do you think I should do more than *tell* you that using blood money for your pet projects is wrong?

Instead of attacking the people performing the services and asking them to quit

I am not asking you to quit performing a service that you want to provide. I am asking you to stop accepting blood money. Do you need accept blood money to provide a service? Or is there a way to do it without supporting violence?

I think there are a lot of different ways to provide a service without using violence. Charity, insurance plans,
entrepreneurship  Pick one: I don't care how you do it as long as you are not using violence to do it.

The strategy that you are proposing: mindless destruction of everything that is remotely connected to government is in my opinion foolish and naive.

My strategy isn't mindless destruction, that's what the government does. My strategy is to end the mindless violence that the government and the people who work for it support.

Using violence to get what you want is foolish and naive.

You can't break stuff without having a plan for replacement.

You can't use violence to buy stuff and say that I have to come up with a replacement plan for you to stop using violence on peaceful people.

Nothing will be as easy for you or your fire department to do, than accept money from a tax collector that is pointing a gun at people's head and stealing their homes when you don't get 40K for your fire department.

I guess I'll never convince you to be an honest person. You and your tax collector will continue to steal from your neighbors because you like to volunteer for a fire department that's maintained with violence.

It's really sad that you believe the only way for you to provide fire services to Grafton is with violence.

[MaineShark]

Or would they just end up paying twice, like those of us who don't send our children to their indoctrination centers?

You're offering a non-workable solution, and complaining because those who realize it isn't workable, don't use it.

You've just contradicted yourself. You gave an example where you do pay twice and then said it's unworkable. So, does it work or doesn't it?

I'm not saying it's ideal but it's a path in the right direction. As the case with schools, if enough people took their kids out of public schools there would be more support for not making people pay twice. The same with the fire subscription service. Grafton is a small town, if you can get 500 people to subscribe, that's MORE than the entire voting base (some folks own property here but are residents in other states and thus don't vote). At that point all it would take is a warrant article to remove the fire department expenditure from the budget and it would pass 100% (since every single voter is already subscribed).

And, because they would be required to pay twice, only those who can afford to do so, could.  Not enough to actually make the change happen, just as in the case of schools.  Which is why it is an unworkable solution.

As far as I can tell any system that requires someone to do something is unworkable to couch anarchists. The great thing about an idealistic solution where you just say "get rid of it" is that you know it won't happen which means you can just sit on your couch and complain without having to do anything. I wish you luck with your "workable" solution.

I have workable solutions, and implement many of them.

I'll even give you a workable solution, free of charge: hold some bake sales.

If you actually disapprove of receiving the proceeds of armed robbery, you'll jump at the chance to do what you can to reduce the funding needed, right?  Because you are the one who is receiving stolen goods, and your argument that others would be worse doesn't hold water, unless you demonstrate that they actually would, by being better.

Joe

[Lex]

You do handle the equipment that was purchased with stolen funds. You could refuse to take part in that violence. You could refuse to accept that stolen money. You could refuse to use the equipment that was purchased with that stolen money.

You do use public roads which were built and are currently maintained with stolen funds. You could refuse to take part in that violence. Just stop going on them. You can create a contract with your neighbors to get to where you have to go by going through their property and pay them a small fee for offering you to use their property instead of lazily using public roads as you do right now and supporting the violence.

You should be ashamed of yourself that you use public roads so carelessly without regard for all of the people that had their money stolen to originally build the roads and the continued violence and theft inherent in maintaining those roads.

Oh, wait, you're a hypocrite who wants other people to live up to your ideal but don't actually want to do it yourself.

[Lex]

And, because they would be required to pay twice, only those who can afford to do so, could.  Not enough to actually make the change happen, just as in the case of
schools.  Which is why it is an unworkable solution.

It's $7 a month. And it'd only be paying twice for a year or two while the amount is removed from the budget.

I'll even give you a workable solution, free of charge: hold some bake sales.

If you actually disapprove of receiving the proceeds of armed robbery, you'll jump at the chance to do what you can to reduce the funding needed, right?  Because you are the one who is receiving stolen goods, and your argument that others would be worse doesn't hold water, unless you demonstrate that they actually would, by being better.

I don't have time to be a fire fighter, work full time, be a dad and to also figure out how to financially support the fire department. There are plenty of people that would do this better than me who would rather bake cookies than go into a burning building. I volunteer my time to respond to fire and ambulance calls, that's all I have time for. If someone feels strongly enough about the fire department using tax money to operate than they can volunteer to bake cookies and find other ways to raise money.

Why is that I or other fire fighters who already volunteer their time are the ones who should be expected to volunteer EVEN MORE TIME to appease the wet dreams of couch anarchists?

[AntonLee]

so you don't get paid?  That's what I take from the word 'volunteer'

[MaineShark]

I'll even give you a workable solution, free of charge: hold some bake sales.

If you actually disapprove of receiving the proceeds of armed robbery, you'll jump at the chance to do what you can to reduce the funding needed, right?  Because you are the one who is receiving stolen goods, and your argument that others would be worse doesn't hold water, unless you demonstrate that they actually would, by being better.

I don't have time to be a fire fighter, work full time, be a dad and to also figure out how to financially support the fire department. There are plenty of people that would do this better than me who would rather bake cookies than go into a burning building. I volunteer my time to respond to fire and ambulance calls, that's all I have time for. If someone feels strongly enough about the fire department using tax money to operate than they can volunteer to bake cookies and find other ways to raise money.

Why is that I or other fire fighters who already volunteer their time are the ones who should be expected to volunteer EVEN MORE TIME to appease the wet dreams of couch anarchists?

You're the ones playing with stolen money.  I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror, let alone hold my head up in front of my children, if I didn't at least try to make a change.

Joe

[Lex]

so you don't get paid?  That's what I take from the word 'volunteer'

You must've missed this post:

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.

[Lex]

You're the ones playing with stolen money.  I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror, let alone hold my head up in front of my children, if I didn't at least try to make a change.

But you haven't tried. YOU don't even live in Grafton! 

[KBCraig]

Here is a suggestion: Someone could put in a warrant article to get rid of burn permits.

[MaineShark]

You're the ones playing with stolen money.  I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror, let alone hold my head up in front of my children, if I didn't at least try to make a change.

But you haven't tried. YOU don't even live in Grafton! 

Yes, and I'm not the one receiving stolen property.  If I were, then I would be looking to at least try and reduce my culpability.  You, apparently, are just happily playing with your stolen toys, feeling not a qualm in the world about working with the murderers who give them to you.

Here is a suggestion: Someone could put in a warrant article to get rid of burn permits.

Nope, that was covered a number of pages ago.  It's a State law, not something town-level, so the town can't eliminate the system.

Joe