We welcome all comments to Firehouse Zen and I appreciate everyone’s views so long as they are civil and relatively logical. In that I read your comment and I’m sure you weren’t insinuating that I am a fascist, but rather that my view of controlling fire spread “serves the nation state rather than the people” (which isn’t my view, but it sure beats being called a fascist or communist), I’m willing to concede the point that I am also not a Libertarian (which I never have been), nor affiliated with ANY other party.

That all being said, I can certainly appreciate your views on landowner’s rights, including the right to burn your home down because you fail to provide a defensible space, but that would mean then (to me) that I have a right to tell you that your house is going to burn down because we aren’t going to fight a fire in it when a wildland/urban interface situation occurs, because other people who DID choose to prevent fire spread deserve some help instead.

Unfortunately, in this time and place, there are only so many firefighting resources available, and it seems that everyone and their brother is quick to blame the fire department when their house burns, although a quick check of origin and cause is likely to reveal that it was something the homeowner did to cause the fire, and we were simply summoned to correct the ongoing disaster. To me, much of the litigation is like the case in which someone ordered a cup of hot coffee, then sued when they were burned by the hot coffee because THEY failed to control it.

I’m not interested right now in debating my political stance, since that’s not what the discussion was about. I was simply trying to illustrate that there are way too many people out there who proclaim a desire to “live their life the way they want to live it”, but selfishly fail to realize that there are others out there whom their lifestyle impacts.

I am the least desirous of a government control on anything; I have had way too many dealings with government at the local, regional, state and federal level and honestly, none of them have impressed me so far as a stellar example of how to do much of anything.

However, in this case and in others like it, there comes a time when educating people on the way to be a good neighbor and citizen would be to help pitch in, and people don’t care to listen, and then legislation ensues. Like a wise man once told me, “If people treated people like they should be treated, we wouldn’t need laws”.

Do we have too much government interference? I think so. But in cases of the public safety, yes, I have seen what people tend to do when left to their own devices and so, yes, I’m okay with legislation to support our efforts to do that. It’s not fascism, but when I see a woman with an unsecured toddler in the backseat running off the road because she’s texting while driving (and I did), I can sleep comfortably with having a few laws on the books to prevent ignorant behavior.

Thanks for your comments and feel free to post. I really do appreciate your viewpoint and I think maybe there’s some middle ground between what we both said.

I think property ownership implies a certain amount of responsibility, and choosing to live in a populous area also implies a certain amount of at least “neighborly” consideration. However, property rights serve a purpose and that is to ensure that those of conflicting/contrasting values can live in peace by respecting boundaries. If you want a blank swath of 100ft around your home, you should have bought one. Your only other option, in a free land, is to convince your neighbor that it is in his own best interests to do what you want him to. Without the right to refuse, property rights are meaningless. (One could still argue property infringement if the neighbors neglect causes undue risk or damage to another’s property.)

We should all endeavor to promote good stewardship to our children and in society, and small governments might also pursue tax incentives for good property maintenance; Options for encouraging good behavior in society are limitless and many incur little cost – unlike your Statist position which, while it may make you feel good about your superior education, values and authority, bears the terrible cost of lost freedom and increased government control over our lives. Without the freedom to make bad choices, we have none at all, and no one but an individual can weigh the merit of their own values.

Government wealth distribution is not charity, and while you can ask and help others to be responsible, you cannot force people to become moral and certainly not with government force. That is like mugging someone to show that mugging is wrong.

Libertarian? No, try again.

Oh yeah, I want Martha’s Vinyard in my sphere of influence.

Defensible space is like a noise ordinance. Most people don’t think their brush is really a problem, but their neighbor’s is. Hopefully, the ordinance has some teeth behind it as it really does affect the entire community.

Thanks for the post.