The "blame the black guy" health care bill has created a precedent wherein congress has passed a law that can tax you to pay for a private company's services. That is now the law. White folk countrywide who otherwise do not know how to serve customers will now flock to congress to get congress to make customers for them too. There is no rational limit to this premise. After the election, the law will not be overturned, no matter who wins. People will blame Obama.
But the economic destruction of USA will speed up, because there is no way this can be affordable, and it also forbids innovation and price reduction. So the time to look at rebuilding society from the ashes is now, and a good learning experience would be for cities to eliminate all paid firefighters.
There is probably no group of city workers more loved than firefighters, which is a tribute to social conditioning. So if we can prove we do not need paid fire fighters, then what city services do we need? Of course, none, and people will know we can do quite well without city governments when we have no city governments.
Someone joked the USA is the only place in the world where if your house is on fire a truckload of millionaires will show up and put it out. Witty. But that is city firefighters, they who retire with pensions and bennies which constitute millionaire-grade personal wealth. It is the city firefighters who are paid. 70% of the firefighters in USA are volunteer, which means they are not paid. They are every bit as well trained and equipped as any paid fire-fighter, they just volunteer to help their neighbors. Glad to do it without pay.
Last Saturday night I had a conversation with a volunteer firefighter from connecticut, a strapping young man with shoulder length hair. He added a few points I had not considered. First he brought me up short on the question of why firefighters are paid. I was wandering in the labor theory argument when he cut me off with "cities pay firefighters because they have money."
 |
| Max Whittaker for The New York Times |
Now, for me, this economic reality I always such a challenge. I know it is true, I know it is almost always a factor in economic calculation, but it is so hard for me to grasp and hold it. First off, it is a repugnant concept, spending for the sake of spending, and second off, I am from a field were to survive you must cut costs.
But the fact is the volunteer fire fighter is right. Cities have a captive audience, which they tax. Now they have money. What to spend it on? How about art, playgrounds, firefighters, whatever. Nothing necessary. It does not matter what they spend it on, it just matters that they collect and spend it, and keep some for themselves. Since cities have money, they spend it. The money comes from force and fraud, you will be crushed if you do not pay the taxes, the money is not spent as you think it is. It does not cost that much to suppress fires in a city, we just spend that much.
It does not cost that much to produce new drugs, we just spend that much.
It does not cost that much to defend America, we just spend that much.
See how it goes?
Then there was another interesting observation. In his small town when the alarm goes out thirty guys with axes and gear show up. Fires are put out quickly. Then it is Miller time. In cities Firefighters are paid. Maybe twelve people show up, no more. How come? Because lavishing so much money on so few, and having a public union to keep people from fighting fires, the result is city fires have less crews fighting them than town fires. Since cities pay firefighters, they cannot afford better coverage. This would make an interesting study. Come up with a gauge that reads how many BTUs a fire is giving off when the first firefighters arrive, and how long it ties to end the fire. Then compare paid firefighters to volunteer firefighters. I bet we'd find that volunteer fire fighters put out fires faster than the paid fire fighters. But "unfair!" you say, there are more volunteer fire fighters attacking a fire. Exactly!
He had another sidelight. In his town they got rid of the police department. Now no town in USA is allowed to have no cops, so towns must contract with county or state police to be the state presence of the monopoly on violence which defines the state, if they do not have their own cops.
Although he has met the cops, he could could not recall if they were state or county since he saw them so rarely, but he told a story. The outside cop working evenings made his first task to meet the volunteer firefighters. How come? In case of trouble, the cop needed back-up. The volunteer fire fighters being local, most likely knew everyone. he recalled how once an outraged dad was threatening a cop for hauling his drunk-driver son away. Police back-up was scarce, so the deputy called the volunteer firefighters. Within minutes a dozen men with axes were on the scene, who in turned calmed down the outraged father. No swat teams, no killings. Only a drunk driver went to jail.
None of these make for ideal circumstances, but they are better ways. People should not see the end of this country as we experience it and have fear. What we are losing we don't need anyway. We can test out living in freedom by eliminating paid city firefighters. Then we will all see that one of our cherished conceits was all a sham anyway.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
