The Christian, conservative virtues of rejecting socialism

Obion County TN has taken the foward-looking position of opting for lower taxes over government spending and socialized public services.  The fire department in Obion operates on a privatized, opt-in fee basis. This is clearly the wave of the future, as represented by such leading conservative thinkers as Freedomworks' Tea Bag empresario Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich,  Congressman Paul Ryan, Senator Jim DeMint,  candidates Rand Paul, Sharon Angle and Jim Miller.  Cut taxes and privatize government services seems to be their Big Idea - perhaps their only one. 

Of course, ideas have consequences.  Obion TN hit the news this past week when the local fire department stood and watched an Obion resident's house burn to the ground because the owner had failed to pay his $75 fee.  Fair enough.  That's the deal.  The county has saved residents a whopping  .13% increase in property taxes that would accrue if the fire department were simply a public service provided by local government.  The beauty is that the residents of Obion have more freedom and aren't burdened by the fire department socialism that most of America suffers under. I may sound like I'm being ironic - because I am - but the deep thinkers at National Review are actually having a debate over this, with some of their "heavyweights" like John Derbyshire coming down on the side of letting the house burn because the owner failed to pay the fee. Yes, privatization when it comes to the fire department is a "conservative value" over at America's leading conservative weekly. 

Better yet - for those who are shocked and/or amused by the looniness of the right-wing, the Tea Baggers, conservative "intellectuals" and other venders of the paralogical farragos that constitute conservative "thought" in its present debased ambience - is this contribution from the "Christian" Right at American Family Association. (Remember that this is coming from the same corner who want the state to have ultimate authority in private matters such as abortion and sexual preference.)  The AFA commentary has to be read to be believed:

The fire department did the right and Christian thing. The right thing, by the way, is also the Christian thing, because there can be no difference between the two. The right thing to do will always be the Christian thing to do, and the Christian thing to do will always be the right thing to do.

If I somehow think the right thing to do is not the Christian thing to do, then I am either confused about what is right or confused about Christianity, or both.

In this case, critics of the fire department are confused both about right and wrong and about Christianity. And it is because they have fallen prey to a weakened, feminized version of Christianity that is only about softer virtues such as compassion and not in any part about the muscular Christian virtues of individual responsibility and accountability.

The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that we must accept individual responsibility for our own decisions and actions. He who sows to the flesh, we are told, will from the flesh reap corruption. The law of sowing and reaping is a non-repealable law of nature and nature’s God.

We cannot make foolish choices and then get angry at others who will not bail us out when we get ourselves in a jam through our own folly. The same folks who are angry with the South Fulton fire department for not bailing out Mr. Cranick are furious with the federal government for bailing out Wall Street firms, insurance companies, banks, mortgage lenders, and car companies for making terrible decisions. What’s the difference?

Mr. Cranick made a decision - a decision to spend his $75 on something other than fire protection - and thereby was making a choice to accept the risk that goes with it. He had no moral, legal, ethical or Christian claim on the services of the fire department because of choices that he himself made.

Jesus once told a parable about 10 virgins attending a wedding feast, five of whom failed to replenish the oil in their lamps when they had the chance. The bridegroom came when they were out frantically searching for oil, and by the time they made it back to the party, the door was shut tight. The bridegroom - the Christ figure in the story - refused to open the door, saying “Truly, I say to you, I do not  know you” (Matthew 25:13).

The critics of South Fulton thereby implicate themselves as accusers of Christ himself, making him out to be both cold and heartless. They may want to be careful about that.

"Muscular" Christianity from an aficionado of the Supply-Side Jesus.

Comments

[pablo]

Another perfect example as to why MSNBC, in this case Olbermann who presented the story of the Obion fire in polemical terms instead of a news story regarding public policy, is unfit as a news organisation. Obvious, as the story above indicates, is the drive to play gotcha politics; or 'our political philosophy is better than yours'.

There are thousands of untold ordinances passed by local legislative bodies and agencies nationwide which have unconstitutional, unintended, or unforeseen consequences.

One might begin by assuming that the legislative body which enacted the opt-out fire law in Obion was duly elected.
That said, the first question becomes whether the ordinance is constitutional.
In my opinion the answer is that it is not. However laying that aside for a moment the substantive question in this case is whether the Fire Company was negligent, notwithstanding the ordinance, when it stood by and watch the structure burn.
There, the answer is clearly yes. For a host of legal reasons the city should have performed the abatement and then seek restitution.

What is instructive and useful to citizens who wish to form a more perfect Union is a news exposition which examines the ambit of local legislative power and its consequences.
This way lessons from poorly crafted local ordinances can be learned in useful in the future.
However those bent on demonizing decisions by local councils for media-circus satisfaction are actually doing more harm to the republic than the misguided acting in good faith. This coming from liberals is yet one more indication why their otherwise semi-sensical policies are failing to resonate with ordinary voters.

[reg]

You don't expect me to read through another idiotic MSNBC-obsessed rant, do you?

[reg]

Thank you Jordan 6 for your thoughts. Brevity is a virtue, and Sunny day definitely brings me happy. Unless, of course, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman are leading the masses of Americans down the path of liberal tyranny and condescension. That is definitely morning rain at night.

[pablo]

Reg...Jordan is less interested in your angry observations than Jordan is in making you er, foot the bill for new shoes...mouseclick on the Jordan signature at the bottom of his sneak(er)y post.

[reg]

Thanks for explaining that to me, Pablo. Because obviously my comment was totally serious and I was oblivious to the fact that it was spam.

(Did you really have to mouseclick to figure it out ?)

[pablo]

If you heard this story on NPR today then you would know that the omitted facts on the MSNBC report would create a much different picture of what had occurred... thus we may conclude that those facts were omitted for a reason.
The NPR report was much more satisfying because it stuck to what actually happened while giving a fascinating history of 19 Century insurance company funded fire brigades.
Of course when the point is shaping facts to fit a conclusion, as was the case in this story on Olbermann, instead of the other way around then there really isn't much point in hearing about the story at all.

According to NPR the burned house lies outside of the city limits. Those inside the city are automatically covered.. but those in the county are not and may opt-in. The county has no fire company, volunteer or otherwise.
So right away we don't have the shrill revenge of the Ayn Rands' which has been pontificated in the story above. Omitting the fact that the fire arose outside the city jurisdiction makes the city fathers of Obion look more evil thereby by adding to the useful of the story on MSNBC as a foil aimed at attacking conservative government.

More insidious though is that the local NBC affiliate was on scene and interviewed the fire chief and local residents who offered to pay the city for the cost of abatement.
The fire chief told NBC that they were there only to protect an adjacent property who opted-in.
With this Olbermann had constructive knowledge that the fire blazed outside of the fire department jurisdiction.

NPR went into the facts surrounding the incident without opining in an ideo rant. They also brought in a historian who discussed how early fire bragades were funded by insurance companies and served homes branded with insurance company logos...interesting stuff. Check it out online at NPR.

My first response above to the nonsense reported on Olbermann did not include the facts which i learned today on NPR. Now I amend my earlier conclusions to say that the city did not act in an unconstitutional manner. However the mere fact it arrived on the scene created a duty to respond. I strongly believe the the city will be found liable in tort for its negligence arising out of its refusal to fight the fire. I would be less inclined to think so if they failed to respond at all.

[reg]

Funny that I knew all of those facts...but it doesn't change the story of Obion's choice to force it's citizens to contract privately with a fire department. I can't believe you're so dense that you want to parse this. Truly idiotic. And you call ME angry. You're obsessed, pal.

And a total bore.

[reg]

And where do you get off assuming I saw this on Olbermann. I never watch Olbermann. That appears to be your fascination. MSNBC has nothing to do with my post.

[pablo]

And where do you get off assuming I saw this on Olbermann. I never watch Olbermann. That appears to be your fascination. MSNBC has nothing to do with my post.
--------------------------

Where do you get off saying that I assumed you got the story from Kieth????

I must be blind rage..

[pablo]

Funny that I knew all of those facts...but it doesn't change the story of Obion's choice to force it's citizens to contract privately with a fire department.
-------------------------------

Then you do not know the facts.... fire protection is automatic for residents inside the city and elective for those outside the city... to help you:

Assume say, West Oakland on the East Bay does not have a fire company.... but San Francisco does... SF has no pre-existing duty to protect residents of W Oakland...no more than it does the residents of Philadelphia.
Hope this helps calm you down.

[reg]

I know precisely what you think you're "correcting" - proving, of course, you're an ass. Just hang this one up. You're contributing nothing but arrogant bullshit and making yourself sound increasingly stupid. I don't know if you're "angry" but your obsessive behavior is beginning to come off as pathological.

[reg]

"I must be blind rage" - thank you for that telling slip of the typing.

[reg]

Incidentally, Pablo, the city that has the fire department is South Fulton. Obion has opted to have fee-for-service fire "protection" using the South Fulton department as the provider. The alternative would have been for the Obion district to increase local property taxes by .13% and contract with South Fulton to provide service to all Obion residents. These are the facts, as I presented them - without noting the irrelevant detail that the next city over is South Fulton, which provides the contract services that Obion has decided to put on a "personalized" basis, to use Sharon Angle's phraseology. I'm mystified by your obsessive parsing of this, and concern for how NPR played it versus Keith Olbermann (neither of which I saw or needed to see to understand the fundamental issue of private contracting/ individual fees vs. universal access/tax-funded models for essential services.) I can't believe I have to explain this to you, just as I can't believe you thought I didn't "get" the Jordan 6 spam...

[Jamie]

Also, the for-profit fire dept model creates a perverse incentive to not put out the fire at the guys house who didn;t pay, becaue if they did the right thing and saved his house, then no one would pay again and the dept would go bust. A public fire dept has only an incentive to put out fires. And in fact the depts of neighboring cities will help each other out as necessay (and presumably send a bill after the fact) which is why all the fire plugs in the Bay Area, S.F., Oklanad, Berkeley, Marin, etc. have had the same size threads since 1906 and do feel an obligation to fight fires anywhere in the region if called upon. This is much more efficient (as well as moral) than letting someone's property burn down to set an example to the other people who made the ridiculous choice to opt out of fire dept coverage. The worst thing about free market ideologues is that they use a perversion of economics to reach ridiculous conclusions. In the case of fire depts a market-based analysis of the situation clearly leads to the conclusion that a public service model is better in almost any respect. hta is real economics