[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

So what about all the places that aren't Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated places in the world? What about the lower density places? How do they organize themselves? How do they fund their infrastructure when they don't have the cash flow from taxes to do so?

The move together, arrange themselves, live by what they can afford, try to attract newcomers by making themselves attractive by the means they have. In other words: they compete with other communities.

In Germany, we have a big problem with many rural places especially in the five Eastern federal states. The young have moved away, the older who want to stay, die and reduce their own numbers. Still, some claim the normal network of infrastructure, supply and so forth must be maintained.

But it cannot be afforded. One wan ts more than one can afford. Taxes directed there, are missing in more vital parts. Debts accepted to maintain it, punish others, and the young, and will deliver an even bigger bill in the end.

Some things just cannot go on. People must learn that. People will adapt. Give them the freedom to do so. Tell them that it is their responsibility to live their life - not the state's. And leave them the freedom to live up to that responsibility, instead of endlessly nanny them from the cradle to the grave.

Yeah, if you didn't pay, your family dies and your property is destroyed. Sucks for you, eh?

Good god that's brutal and cruel. I want no part of your world.

Maybe we should also ban air traffic. Some days ago a pilot made an error and missed the runway and crashed the plane.

Let'S check the facts on your example.

People in the city of South Fulton have fire protection, but those in the surrounding county do not unless they pay a $75 annual fee.

The city makes no exceptions.

"There's no way to go to every fire and be able to keep up the manpower, the equipment, and just the funding for the fire department," said South Fulton Mayor David Crocker.

Crocker said that by now, everyone should know about the city's fire policy.

"After the last situation, I would hope that everybody would be well aware of the rural fire fees, this time," he said.

Well, that is sane, healthy reason, and no sign of "social cold" at all.

In a nearby county, rural homeowners can purchase a $110 subscription to cover fires, but they can also pay on the spot for fire protection: $2,200 for the first two hours firefighters are on the scene and $1,100 for each additional hour, according to dailytimes.com.

Sounds okay. And whooot - sounds like the counties mentioned have quite some independence in how to organise their fire protection policies. Washington seems not to tell them how to do what. Nor do they seem to be in need for that.

Bell and her boyfriend said they were aware of the policy, but thought a fire would never happen to them.

Well, they took a gamble, they lost. Their responsibility. I took a gamble when for many years living without a liability insurance - until I realised that I took a gamble there. Since then I have one.

The city has received a lot of criticism over its policy, but has refused to change it.

And why should they? Why should others pay more just because a gambler or a parasite expects them to pay his share? Or demands to get the service for free? Or the service being payed by making more debts in the budget, debts that others, sooner or later must pay for?

Maybe you would argue with social hardness now, and poverty. They the question would be why people who cannot afford to own a house nevertheless think they must own a house - if they cannot afford it.

Moral of the story by the end of the day: you want protection from something, you pay the insurance or service fee or whatever it is. If you do not, you have no claim to make. You also have no claim to demand others to bail you out. If they voluntarily do it, fine. But an obligation ? No.