posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by Mental Maze
As I contemplated the many arguments in regards to the fire policy I have two takes on it.
One, that the policy is a bit shortsighted and did not completely hash out all possible outcomes of its creation. Thus we have a house that burned
On the other hand, the fire department that showed up, did their jobs as prescribed. 1: They responded to the fire. 2. They ensured that no human
life was in danger because of the fire. 3: They ensured that the fire did not threaten other buildings or property.
Both are valid arguments and both should be looked at when discussing the policy at hand. The area is rural and the land owners understood their
risks when they chose not to pay the amount to have the 'extended fire coverage' (that bit is made up, because I truly believe they received the
minimal service, that which I outlined above in three points.)
Again though Maze, you are mixing economic theory with unrelated incidents. This is like saying APPLE PIE AT ITS FINEST and showing us a peach
cobbler instead. If you are a computer person, think of capitalism as the software and the network as the free-market. Wholly independent of each
other in terms of operation, but the free market (the network) still operates without the software (capitalism).
You have an affinity towards capitalism and that is okay in itself, but you are doing little to discuss why and how you have such. Between the
Capitalism=Imperialism thread and this one, it is obvious that you have little grasp on the economic theory of capitalism.