San Diego in an AC world

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So San Siego is under some significant stress ATM and Goverment is providing a substantial response. How 'bout the AC'ers on here tell us how much this situation would be better for us in an AC world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Elliot,

How 'bout you tell me why I should be forced at gunpoint to provide somone in San Diego with a service that they want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure: because it's the law. Now it's your turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I presume you would have been pro slavery when that was the law right? I presume you are pro three strikes rule for cannabis offences because that is the law right? I presume you are also pro death penalty right?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is three more questions any you have not yet answered mine, which I asked first. Are you refusing to answer my question?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to your question is I don't know and it doesn't matter. Do you hold the position that something is morally justified just because "it is the law"?

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ANd the same old runaround answers... "no it's not, because I said so" and "no it doesn't" and "because we'll beat you up" (see question 2).

[/ QUOTE ]

No the answer is: you revealed your preferences by staying in the US of A. Furthermore the fact that there is no AC society for you to move to is a clear indication that it's not a profitable offer on the market for social systems, i.e. lacking sufficient demand to overcome the setup cost

[/ QUOTE ]

That's assuming there is a free market for social systems. Abraham Lincoln did a pretty good job setting up costly barriers to entry in the social systems "market".

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is one big FGM (Fallacy Generation Machine).

In a free market world wildfires would be fought by firms that specialize in this task. Just like there are firms that specialize in fighting oil rig fires, for example. Red Adair and his company flew all over the world to fight these fires. At any given moment somewhere in the world is a wildfire that needs to be controlled. Competition would ensure that these companies were efficient, competent, and low cost (compared to the alternative of letting everything burn down at least). These firms would be contracted by the insurance companies that indemnify the home and business owners in the area threatened by the fires. They don't do this now because it isn't their job; the government tells people they will fight the fires. In fact, I have no specific knowledge, but I would be willing to bet some non-zero amount of money that it is illegal for non-government agencies to engage in combating wildfires (unless they are contracted by the government maybe).

Insurance companies have a HUGE financial incentive to control wildfires. They have to pay out to every policy owner who's property is destroyed. Meanwhile, the government has little incentive beyond political pressure. The valiant men and women who are currently fighting the fires would be just as valiant in a free market. Meanwhile, insurance companies would have direct and large financial incentives to develop new and innovative firefighting techniques and technologies that we can't even imagine, as well as to incentivize preventative maintenance of wildfire-prone property.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to see you're back at it.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ANd the same old runaround answers... "no it's not, because I said so" and "no it doesn't" and "because we'll beat you up" (see question 2).

[/ QUOTE ]

No the answer is: you revealed your preferences by staying in the US of A.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't justify anything.

If I give you the choice between having me shoot you in the face and having me shoot you in the little toe, when you "reveal your preference" for getting shot in the toe, is my act of shooting you in the toe then morally justified?

This once again reduces to might makes right. The crybabies wonder why they keep hearing the same stuff over and over again, it's because we keep seeing the same hamfisted justification attempts over and over again.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore the fact that there is no AC society for you to move to is a clear indication that it's not a profitable offer on the market for social systems, i.e. lacking sufficient demand to overcome the setup cost

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this doesn't create any justification for any action.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Here, I'll even toss you an easier one having to do with poker (I assume you do actually play.) How do online poker sites work in AC-land?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically exactly like they do now. Except I wouldn't have had several thousand dollars tied up in neteller for what seemed like an eternity, and I would still be able to play on Party without jumping through a series of technological hoops.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ANd the same old runaround answers... "no it's not, because I said so" and "no it doesn't" and "because we'll beat you up" (see question 2).

[/ QUOTE ]

No the answer is: you revealed your preferences by staying in the US of A.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't justify anything.

If I give you the choice between having me shoot you in the face and having me shoot you in the little toe, when you "reveal your preference" for getting shot in the toe, is my act of shooting you in the toe then morally justified?

This once again reduces to might makes right. The crybabies wonder why they keep hearing the same stuff over and over again, it's because we keep seeing the same hamfisted justification attempts over and over again.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore the fact that there is no AC society for you to move to is a clear indication that it's not a profitable offer on the market for social systems, i.e. lacking sufficient demand to overcome the setup cost

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this doesn't create any justification for any action.

[/ QUOTE ]

David Hume demolished this ridiculous argument over two centuries ago, yet they keep trotting it out. Amazing.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I have no specific knowledge, but I would be willing to bet some non-zero amount of money that it is illegal for non-government agencies to engage in combating wildfires (unless they are contracted by the government maybe).

[/ QUOTE ]

In two minutes of research, I was able to discover that California has a legal definition of "authorized emergency vehicle". This would definitely be a starting point towards making private wildfire response illegal.

[ QUOTE ]
165. An authorized emergency vehicle is:
(a) Any publicly owned and operated ambulance, lifeguard, or
lifesaving equipment or any privately owned or operated ambulance
licensed by the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol to
operate in response to emergency calls.
(b) Any publicly owned vehicle operated by the following persons,
agencies, or organizations:
(1) Any federal, state, or local agency, department, or district
employing peace officers as that term is defined in Chapter 4.5
(commencing with Section 830) of Part 2 of Title 3 of the Penal Code,
for use by those officers in the performance of their duties.
(2) Any forestry or fire department of any public agency or fire
department organized as provided in the Health and Safety Code.
(c) Any vehicle owned by the state, or any bridge and highway
district, and equipped and used either for fighting fires, or towing
or servicing other vehicles, caring for injured persons, or repairing
damaged lighting or electrical equipment.
(d) Any state-owned vehicle used in responding to emergency fire,
rescue or communications calls and operated either by the Office of
Emergency Services or by any public agency or industrial fire
department to which the Office of Emergency Services has assigned the
vehicle.
(e) Any vehicle owned or operated by any department or agency of
the United States government when the vehicle is used in responding
to emergency fire, ambulance, or lifesaving calls or is actively
engaged in law enforcement work.
(f) Any vehicle for which an authorized emergency vehicle permit
has been issued by the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol.

[/ QUOTE ]

ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/code/ve...-01000/100-680

Cliffs notes, only publicly-owned vehicles or privately-owned vehicles with a state-issued license are authorized emergency vehicles.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that unauthorized emergency vehicles, by virtue of being unauthorized, are somewhat illegal. And without vehicles, it's going to be hard to legally AND effectively respond to emergencies.

I'm still digging on this one.

[pvn]

It's also, of course, illegal to impersonate a firefighter in California (unless you're in a movie). I would think that fighting fires with unauthorized emergency vehicles might cause someone to believe that you're a firefighter.

538e. (a) Any person, other than an officer or member of a fire
department, who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses the authorized
uniform, insignia, emblem, device, label, certificate, card, or
writing of an officer or member of a fire department or a deputy
state fire marshal, with the intent of fraudulently impersonating an
officer or member of a fire department or the Office of the State
Fire Marshal, or of fraudulently inducing the belief that he or she
is an officer or member of a fire department or the Office of the
State Fire Marshal, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) (1) Any person, other than the one who by law is given the
authority of an officer or member of a fire department, or a deputy
state fire marshal, who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses the badge
of a fire department or the Office of the State Fire Marshal with the
intent of fraudulently impersonating an officer, or member of a fire
department, or a deputy state fire marshal, or of fraudulently
inducing the belief that he or she is an officer or member of a fire
department, or a deputy state fire marshal, is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed
one year, by a fine not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000), or
by both that imprisonment and fine.
(2) Any person who willfully wears or uses any badge that falsely
purports to be authorized for the use of one who by law is given the
authority of an officer or member of a fire department, or a deputy
state fire marshal, or which so resembles the authorized badge of an
officer or member of a fire department, or a deputy state fire
marshal as would deceive any ordinary reasonable person into
believing that it is authorized for the use of one who by law is
given the authority of an officer or member of a fire department or a
deputy state fire marshal, for the purpose of fraudulently
impersonating an officer or member of a fire department, or a deputy
state fire marshal, or of fraudulently inducing the belief that he or
she is an officer or member of a fire department, or a deputy state
fire marshal, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment
in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed two
thousand dollars ($2,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
(c) Any person who willfully wears, exhibits, or uses, or who
willfully makes, sells, loans, gives, or transfers to another, any
badge, insignia, emblem, device, or any label, certificate, card, or
writing, which falsely purports to be authorized for the use of one
who by law is given the authority of an officer, or member of a fire
department or a deputy state fire marshal, or which so resembles the
authorized badge, insignia, emblem, device, label, certificate, card,
or writing of an officer or member of a fire department or a deputy
state fire marshal as would deceive an ordinary reasonable person
into believing that it is authorized for use by an officer or member
of a fire department or a deputy state fire marshal, is guilty of a
misdemeanor, except that any person who makes or sells any badge
under the circumstances described in this subdivision is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed fifteen thousand
dollars ($15,000).
(d) Any person who, for the purpose of selling, leasing or
otherwise disposing of merchandise, supplies or equipment used in
fire prevention or suppression, falsely represents, in any manner
whatsoever, to any other person that he or she is a fire marshal,
fire inspector or member of a fire department, or that he or she has
the approval, endorsement or authorization of any fire marshal, fire
inspector or fire department, or member thereof, is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(e) This section shall not apply to either of the following:
(1) Use of a badge solely as a prop for a motion picture,
television, or video production, or an entertainment or theatrical
event.
(2) A badge supplied by a recognized employee organization as
defined in Section 3501 of the Government Code representing
firefighters or a state or international organization to which it is
affiliated.

ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/code/pe...-01000/528-539

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here, I'll even toss you an easier one having to do with poker (I assume you do actually play.) How do online poker sites work in AC-land?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hard working private citizens expose scandals where they occur and use the internet to explain to people why they should pull their money out of dodgy blacklisted sites. Sorry that'll never happen will it noone will ever work selflessly for the good of others to expose cheaters how silly of me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny you should mention that. How come nobody's going to jail and one of the scammers will be coming back to his chairmanship post at the end of some "no one is going to publicly say" time period?

Also, how come nobody's stopped playing there?

[ QUOTE ]
Basically exactly like they do now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, well, THAT's a relief.

[calmB4storm]

[ QUOTE ]
How do online poker sites work in AC-land?

[/ QUOTE ]
U.S.-based sites.
No tax on winnings.
More deposit options.
etc.