This week New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed into law a provision that transfers liability for personal injuries on public sidewalks from the city to the adjacent building owner. In addition, a companion bill the mayor signed will require property owners to carry liability insurance that provides coverage for sidewalk injuries.
This legislation transfers liability for sidewalk accidents from the city to the property owners who already have the duty to keep the sidewalks in good repair.
So let me get this right. You do not own the bit of the pavement in front of your house/flat. Nevertheless, you are responsible for keeping in it good repair, clean it of snow, ice and other obstructions to pedestrians. At your own cost. For the Public Good. And you are also liable for anything that happens to your accident-prone, trigger-suing compatriots.
Call me old-fashioned but this is outrageous. The concept of being responsible for something you do not own and have no property right to is not only non-sensical but goes to the heart of your personal freedom. The New York City imposes a cost on you without any corresponding choice to dispose of that responsibility. They make you clean, repair and pay legal costs for the pavement whether you like it or not, in the name of Clean and Safe Pavements. You are made a slave to the passing pedestrians or rather the Public in general, which of course is a patriotic and public-spirited thing. That sounds familiar…
Oh, and now you are also forced to buy insurance to pay for the liability you have no choice in incurring. It seems that New York Mayor sees property rights his way.
Outrageous is the word. The logical next step would be to privatise the sidewalk, and let people charge a toll for walking on it. But that wouldn’t be, um, ‘public spirited.’
Background from lifelong NYer: There is literally an industry of unscrupulous lawyers here who work the “slip and sue” trade against the city.
Several mayors have tried to limit the shakedowns, but the city council and others, literally in the pocket of the lawyers’ guild, have successfully blocked any reform of the legal honeypot/jackpot.
Transferring legal responsibility for the sidewalks puts the less enticing, uneven, smaller wallets
of landlords in the attorneys’ crosshairs.
Now, yes, this is outrageous from a property rights perspective. But it has local legal precedent insofar as sanitiation/street cleaning responsibility has been bit by bit shifted from the city to property owners, with “fine” enforcement.
You are perfectly correct to condemn this blatant attack on property rights. I only post this to provide the context.
George,
I appreciate the context but I fear that this will just make matters worse. Since the property-owners will be insured the target is the (perceived) bottomless pockets of the insurance company.
I am afraid those landlords are going to have more sharks swimming around them than the crew of the USS Indianapolis.
This is one of many reasons that I moved out of the city 5 months ago. We all knew Bloomberg was just a Democrat in Republican’s clothing, but he was (theoretically) better than “Public” Advocate Mark Green. However, Bloomberg has shown himself to possibly be worse than anybody, seeing as he has zero concept of property rights (this scenario, the smoking ban, etc.), is tax-boy, and would like to suck money from people who live outside the city but commute even though he is the mayor of New York City, not southern New York state.
I cannot express the relief of getting out of the city–it is sliding back into hellhole (read: 80’s) land under Bloomberg.
I could not agree more on the assessment of the mayor. He is a Republican in name only. Because he is so unpopular with New Yorkers in general, look for him to be a one-term wonder. And because he is an intelligent man he must know this. Look for more of the same type of asinine stunts in the future. He’s got nothing to lose.
I’m surprised NY city ever picked up the tab for slip-and-fall. I thought most cities had that legal awkwardness, where the city owns the sidewalk but the landlord keeps it clear on pain of lawsuit.
Not that I’m defending the policy, mind. Liability law is one area where, verily, America doth suck.
When I used to live in New Jersey, I was astonished that the ‘land of the free’ tried to say a property owner was responsible for clearing the snow off a sidewalk that they did not own in front of their house or risk liability if someone slips (or fines)… I always said that if I had owned the property I lived in, at the first snowfall I would erect a barrier across the sidewalk and levy a service charge from passers-by… after all, if I am liable for something, how can I be prevented from exercising control over it in such a manner? If the state is going to treat the sidewalk as property for which I am liable without my consent, then I will simply claim ownership of it and give the state’s actions as proof of that ownership.
But the one thing that astonished me even more than such impositions themselves was the attitude of people I spoke to about this…in the vast majority of cases they were baffled by the fact I should find such a thing remarkable. I was mostly greeted with shrugs and “that’s just the way it is” and genuine surprise that I should not just object strongly but regard it as an outrageous imposition that should be bitterly and actively resisted… it is nothing less than forcible state conscription of their labour. I recall asking if they would be happy to be forcibly conscripted into providing manual labour to build a new town hall or to be required to assemble and provide labour to cut up fallen trees on public roads?
Sure, in some ways the USA is freer than most places, particularly in certain states… in others, it is breathtakingly collectivist.
Movin’ to Montana soon,
gonna be a dental floss tycoon…..
Perry, Jersey (especially North Jersey/New York metro area) is as bad as the city and Long Island.
You have to remember this area is historically populated enormously by European immigrants who got off the boat at Ellis island and just stayed there (and who I am almost completely descended from). These are the people who did not elect to go west and rely on themselves and develop their own property, but the people who stayed in a more collectivist (city) environment and who stayed among other recent Europeans. American ideals were there, but the baggage brought from Europe was there too.
New York City and Jersey have a massive population of collectivists; people who live on top of one another and have gotten used to a lack of true privacy. Add an overwhelming beaurocracy and you get “that’s the way it is”, because you can’t fight City Hall.
Just one more reaon I had to leave. By the way Perry, just go outside the metro area far enough (about 1.5 hours or more, such as Orange or Ulster county in New York or Pennsylvania) and you will see a marked change in attitude. It’s striking, really.
Oh yeah, this will convince people to invest in New York, bring down rental rates, and generally help to revitalized the city.
Alfred E. Neuman: For sure… I have several former NJ friends who got the hell out of Springsteenland and headed for PA in recent years.
“Alfred E. Neuman: For sure… I have several former NJ friends who got the hell out of Springsteenland and headed for PA in recent years.
Posted by Perry de Havilland ”
If they were californian’s moving north, the term would be californicators.
But be that as it may, the people already in PA and other places are usually dismayed by this metro exodus. After all, that’s what THEY wanted to avoid too, and now all these “city people” come and drive up the real estate and put in suburbs and legislate against horrid places like farms which have, shudder, stinky farm animals.
Heh.
Fred.
Fred, yup, that does happen. The sick irony of it is that these particular city-fleers immediately try to legislate in the manner they are familiar with, thereby turning the supposed haven they sought into the hell they fled. And in the process, ruining it for everybody else. Fools.
What the supporters of PA are missing is the fact the the law in PA has been for many years that the property owner is responsible for the maintence of the sidewalk. Frankly, I am suprised that NYC took so long to do this.
While I don’t necessarily agree with this, I always thought it was the norm.
Freddy
P.S.: I used to work for one of those money grubbing PI lawyers, and let me tell you, the stories you hear about them, for the most part, are greatly UNDERSTATED.
It would seem an eloquent way to argue against this ridiculous law would be to put it to the test in front of Mayor Boomberg’s personal residence. I wonder how many slip and fall lawsuits it would take to give him some perspective if it was his wealth (not that of New York business owners) that was being frivolously diminshed?
Sorry to break this news, but this has been the case for YEARS. It’s disgusting, but hardly new. My mother (age 67 and weeks from retirement) was, only a few years ago, forced to pay about $5000 (yes thousand) dollars to have the pavement repaired outside our corner house (meaning, a greater surface area than that in front of houses who only have their fronts facing the street). This pavement was damaged by a private contracting company that built two large hotels across the street from us (we’re near JFK airport). These companies drove 18-wheelers *habitually* over our sidewalk daily for (I’m not kidding) about 2 years, competely crumbling about 15-20 feet of walkway, which they took no responsiblity to repair. Had anyone ever tripped an fallen, we would have had to shell out. No landlords here, just a private, lower-middle-class homeowner (and a freaking irresponsible contractor with more money for laywers than we had.). This is the state of things. Makes me want to become a survivalist. (Do they let black people become survivalists?)
To CRL; Sure, come on out in the woods and join all us white folks from “Deliverence”! At least that’s what the media, lawyers and politicians want you to believe. Anyone who stands up to them just HAS to be an inbred, racist, redneck! Right?
OAMSN. Did you know that during winter, it is better to NOT clean off the sidewalk? If you leave it covered in snow and someone bust their a%#, then it’s an “act of nature/God”. But, if you clean off the sidewalk and someone busts their a%#, you are liable because you didn’t do the job properly. Not making this up.
Do they let black people become survivalists?
Hmm. You’d better check with Central Committee Chairman Bloomberg and get his OK.
Merlin:
In Philadelphia (Possibly the entire state) if one does not clean off the sidewalk within a certain amount of time after the storm (I think 72 hours) you are still held responsible for any injuries a person might suffer.
CRL:
Yes it definately does suck. However, your grandmother (or more specifically her insurance company) should have gone after the private contractor.
Freddy
Actually, strictly speaking, it’s the case in the UK (and thus probably also in the US) that you do own the piece of sidewalk (and road) in front of your property. It’s just that there are common rights of way over it so that in reality it’s not much use to you. Well, other than providing you with a way of getting to your front door.
Aha! I think Patrick has just explained what was puzzling me….
So could this all down to an American (or NY state?) adaptation of the old public-right-of-way concept? Landowners get cross about it in England too, but we don’t have such massive lawsuit payouts for injuries, so it is a bit less emotive.
Rumor has it Rudy’s going to run again.
That’s what one gets when one votes in a billionaire dem who wanted to get elected and switched because there were too many candidates on the dem ballot.
I think Patrick Crozier is right. This does not change the fact that it is impossible to use sidewalks as private property. This has been a debate for a while whether the city should pay for accidents that happen on “private” property.
What I noticed is that a lot of people on smaller streets just do not have sidewalks. No pavement. It is a pain to walk on so peopel walk around. If there is no “sidewalk” per se, do you have to clean it still? Maintain it?
I guess you can always argue that you saw a rare species of an endangered spider loitering there once and are now diligently preserving its natural habitat. Would that work? 🙂
Every day in every way, this mayor makes it more and more difficult to do any sort of business in NYC at all.
I’m out and everyone else should split as well. After all, Mayor Mike takes his G5 to Bermuda on a regular basis.
Not my specialty, but sidewalks are almost certainly the property of the householder, subject to an easement that allows anyone to walk over it. I know that in older areas, the property owner also owns the property out to the middle of the street (subject to an easement, of course), but I don’t think this is true in more recently developed areas.
As outrageous as this may seem, it’s not unprecedented, nor is it particularly new.
Ownership of real property is not, nor has it ever been, absolute. If the legislature (state) or city council (or similar body with the required powers) makes a law that requires property owners to undertake certain actions, then those requirements are perfectly Constitutional provided they don’t infringe on fundamental Constitutional rights. A good example are zoning laws, which limit the use a property owner can put his property into. Yes, it’s still your property, but the fact that the state can regulate how you use it (or require you to undertake certain actions, like paying taxes or assuming responsibility of adjacent public rights-of-way) doesn’t impinge on your ownership, whether you think it does or not.
There was a time in this country when every person who lived in a rural area was expected to pay a “road tax”. The Road Tax wasn’t paid for with money, but with sweat: Each county or state would decide what day would be Road Tax day and on that day people who lived on or near a road were required to go out and smooth the road, fill holes, grade it out, etc. Obviously enforcement was an issue and once automobiles came along a simple expedient was found in applying the tax to fuel sales and using that money to pay for roads, but it shows that such types of servitude were not unheard of (never heard if anyone tried a 13th amendment challenge to a road tax requirement, but I’ll bet it would fail in the same way a challenge to conscription would fail.)
And of course, as many have pointed out, there IS an alternative: Vote with your feet.
martin
The towns I’ve lived in in Massachusetts all had laws like this. Don’t know if it’s state wide or just in the towns I’ve lived in. Don’t think it was quite as bad as NY, though.
You *are* responsible for keeping the sidewalk shoveled, sanded, and/or salted during the winter.
In other words clean off snow and ensure people don’t slip in front of your house.
If someone slips and falls because of snowy or icy conditions, and it’s in front of your house or business, you are liable for damages.
Doesn’t apply, as far as I know, to cracks in sidewalk, buckling of pavement, etc. The city/town is responsible for keeping the sidewalk in good repair. You’re responsible for ensuring people can walk safely on a well-maintained sidewalk.
Been this way for as far as I can recall. Guess because we’ve been doing it so long, never really gave it a thought. Doesn’t seem onerous to me.
I actually like it because oftentimes I leave my car at home in the winter and take public transit. Nice to have all the walkways shovelled (especially after getting a foot or more of snow). If you find someone who hasn’t shoveled, you can report them and they get a couple days to clear sidewalk or get fined.
I think Chris Josephson is precisely the sort of person Perry referred to in his comment above — he takes it for granted that “this is the way it is,” and he’s OK with it because, well, it seems to “work” just fine. Screw the deeper principles involved.
Perry mentioned the “forcible conscription of labor” by the government. This is also manifested in another despicable form: bottle deposit laws enacted in the name of recycling. In my home state of Michigan, for instance, we pay 10 cents per bottle upon purchase, which is given back to us only when we return the empty bottles.
That means citizens are forced to: stockpile stinking bottles in their homes; carry stinking bottles in their cars to the store; handle stinking bottles at the store; spend their own time feeding these bottles into a return machine, which frequently breaks down; take a receipt to a cashier; wait in line; get cash back; drive home.
The whole process makes me sick every time — sometimes almost literally so, because there are few odors worse than putrid old beer spilled onto your pants and shirt.
Yet everyone around here treats the whole escapade with something nearing glee. They walk out of the store with cash in pocket, and you get the sense they feel like they actually EARNED it. Somebody just handed them money — how cool is that? Unbelievable.
Merlin: What did you mean when you wrote “OAMSN”? A Google search on this word produced 0 hits.
Samizdata: Please, please, please ditch the white on blue color scheme, or at least give us an alternate option. It’s not made for human eyes. I hate to complain — everything else about the site is perfect!
Here’s a search you might find interesting. See, for instance, this CA case (“Defendant asserts that Streets & Highways Code §5610 imposes no duty on a landowner to repair a public sidewalk abutting its property for pedestrians’ benefit. Williams v. Foster (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 510, 515. This statute specifically shifts the duty of repair and maintenance for property subject to a dedication or public easement to the owner of the property subject to the easement. Jones, supra, 152 Cal.App.3d at 802”), noting the disclaimer at the top.
While it’s true that we’ve been doing it so long I never thought much about it, it’s untrue that I mean “Screw the deeper principles involved”.
I want my government to do as little for me as possible. To take as little of my hard-earned money as possible to provide services.
If home and business owners were not required to clear the sidewalks, who would? Someone I’d have to pay with my taxes? No thanks.
I *want* the sidewalks clear in the winter. I live on a very steep hill. In the winter we can get lots of snow and/or ice storms. I’ve been forced to walk in the street because some people haven’t cleared their walks. Very dangerous when you have snow and ice.
If we lived in an ideal world, we could assume people would clear their walks out of consideration for people who may need to use them. World isn’t ideal. People need to get to work. Elderly people, unsteady on their feet, need to shop.
I value individual freedom and liberty. I also value responsibility and not depending on government to do it all for you. Nobody gets a ‘free ride’. Nobody gets to slack off and have the government do for you what you can do for yourself.
One of the earliest founders of the ‘Massachusetts Bay Colony’ (can’t recall name) stated, “If any able-bodied man refuses to work, they are not entitled to eat.”. This was when they first arrived and pooled their provisions. If you didn’t do your share of the work, don’t expect to be bailed out by ‘the government’. The people *were* the government.
There wasn’t anyone else to do for them. They had to do for themselves.
The idea was, everyone did their share of whatever work needed to be done. Nobody could force you to work. But, there was a price to pay if you refused. You weren’t going to be ‘provided for’ by the government because *you* were part of the government.
Sidewalks are something we all share. I don’t feel it a great intrusion on my liberty to shovel my walk. I don’t expect my neighbor to feel it a great intrusion either.
We’ve had winters where we have snowstorms right on top of each other with 10 inches plus of snow each storm. Piles up pretty fast and if not removed from the sidewalks it gets packed down and is very difficult to walk on. If this happens, you may not see the sidewalk clear of snow for a month or so.
(Without a *huge* amount of effort.)
As I said, someone has to do it. I’d rather it be individual citizens than the state. We can do it better and cheaper.
Humbar: So use ‘Printer Friendly Format’ and voila… Samizdata.net in Black and White.
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/print.html
“If home and business owners were not required to clear the sidewalks, who would?”
Nobody. You are missing the whole point of the argument, which is that is is immoral to *require* someone to work against their will.
“I *want* the sidewalks clear in the winter.”
Who cares what you want? You don’t have the right to force other people to act for your benefit, just because you want something. That would be slavery.
“I live on a very steep hill. In the winter we can get lots of snow and/or ice storms. I’ve been forced to walk in the street because some people haven’t cleared their walks.”
No, you haven’t been forced to do anything – you’re still quite entitled to walk over the uncleared sidewalk. All you have done is voluntarily *chosen* not to exercise your right to walk over them.
The crux of the matter is this: you have no *right* to a clear sidewalk, because the sidewalk is not your property, and because the property owner is a free man and not a slave whose labour can be conscripted for your benefit.
I do consider the sidewalk my property. My taxes pay to install and maintain public facilities. Public facilities belong to all of us and for some of them, we have a responsibility to maintain them for everyone’s good. *We* are the owners.
Being required to do, or not do, something for the common good is not necessarily the slippery slope to Communism. At times, it’s just good sense.
For example, if you go to a play or a movie, you are required to be quiet during the performance. Why? For the common good of everyone in the theater. You’ve yielded up your right to do anything you want so everyone can enjoy the performance.
Doesn’t make anyone a slave, in all cases, to require they do something or not do something. In the case of shovelling, the person *can* refuse. The town will send someone to clear the sidewalk and send the person a bill.
Instead of paying taxes for an army of people to shovel everyone, the person who would rather have the government do it for them can. I don’t pay for it, the person who’d rather not work does.
I’m not being forced to pay for someone to do work I can do myself. I dislike being forced to pay for things. If I were forced to be taxed to pay for this service, my choices are limited. Pay the tax or go to jail, pay a fine, etc. I feel more of a slave paying taxes than doing it myself.
If a person finds being required to shovel is such a burden and a limitation of his/her freedom, they can try and change the law, move someplace where they won’t be required to do this, or pay to have it done. Nobody is stopping them. They do have choices. A slave has no choices.
It’s very difficult to keep government from just growing and growing. I want government as small as possible and as cheap as possible. In order for that to happen, I must do more myself instead of looking to the state.
The state could require us to hand over money to pay people, maintain equipment, etc. for shovelling snow. Instead we all keep this money and do it ourselves.
It may be a peculiarity of New Englanders, but doing as much as you can for yourself is an ingrained trait. Especially for those who live in New Hampshire and Maine.
I know people living in those states who plow their own streets. Sure, their towns have plows, just not that many. If they wait for the town to do it, they may have to wait for the spring thaw. The alternative is higher taxes to purchase more plows and pay people to drive them. Many of us who have grown up here are very frugal, you could say very cheap.
If I thought it could work I’d be happy with no government, as I know it today. Since the government isn’t going away any time soon the more responsibilities I take on myself and keep out of the government’s hands, the better. We have become too dependent on the government to do things for us.
I also think it’s very dangerous when citizens stop believing they own public property and are responsible for it. People who enjoy a ‘nanny state’ yield ownership, control and responsibility to the state. A simple thing like shovelling your sidewalk helps remind you that you own and are responsible for common items, not the state.
Josephson writes: “People who enjoy a ‘nanny state’ yield ownership, control and responsibility to the state” … such as letting the state mandate that one must manually labor on property one does not own.
Chris Josephson:
Yes, you are quite correct. And it is that dangerous notion that I am working to get into as many heads as I can. ‘Citizens’ do not own public property, the state does.
No. If you want to shovel snow because you want your neighbours to do that for you as well, fine. I wish you good luck and if you live is an area with such great neighbours, that is really wonderful (seriously). But please, if you are conscripted to work on property over which you have no direct control, the only entity who is being empowered is your local government. It is the STATE, not you, who is deciding that you MUST shovel that snow. Sorry, that is not a matter of opinion, you are simply factually wrong to think otherwise. It is a law and only the state can impose a law. The fact you are a willing conscript does not change the fact you are indeed a conscript and that others are not willing and only comply out of fear of the law.
I don’t know why everyong is jumping down Chris’s throat here. I think he’s spot on.
The sidewalk needs to be shovelled. It’s got to be done. We don’t live in a society that can be “snowed in for the winter” anymore, especially in New York.
If business if going to be open (and it needs to be open), the sidewalks have to be clear. So, there are two choices. The private sector (the businesses and people who live there) can do it, or the public sector can. Either we can do it with private money and private effort, or we can pay taxes to have the state do it for us.
I would think that most regulars of this site would prefer the private sector option.
Clear sidewalks however, are not like other property rights. If StarBucks wants to make bad coffee, that doesn’t bother Macy’s in the least, next door. However, if StarBucks doesn’t want to clear its sidewalks, that is Macy’s problem, because then customers for Macy’s cannot get to the store safely.
For this reason private business have agreed the sidewalks must be clear. It must be done. Democracy has spoken. They could repeal the law at any time, but they don’t, because people want it. And so, the question returns to who must do it.
As for the liability issue, it is better for “free market reasons” to transfer the responsibility to private actors. They are many, and I don’t think they need too much explanation. In short, the sidewalks’ maintanence was privatized some years ago. Now, the sidewalk liablity is privatized. It will no longer be the responsibility of the state. The citizens will shoulder it.
You see, Bloomberg has not created any new responsibilities. He has merely transferred them from the government to the private citizens who maintain the sidewalk. Personally, if liability has to exist, I would rather it be in the hands of the free market than the government.
But that’s just me.
Now, if you don’t like the fact that there is “slip n’ fall” lawsuits, that’s a whole different ballgame. In America we have Tort law, which to sum up, says if you are injured in a risky situation that was created (in part, or in whole) by a third party, that party owes you compensation. If you don’t like THAT, well, don’t blame Bloomberg. You can’t blame him for that.
As for me, I hate Bloomberg. As a New Yorker, I sure hope there’s a good alternative when votin’ time comes around. But don’t attack him for privatization. It’s not very libertarian.
Brock makes sense.
But of course there is one irony in property-owners responsibile for improvement/repair of sidewalks adjacent to their property: most major jurisdictions in the USA have “transportation departments” (usually almost entirely auto-oriented) which make it very onerous to improve a sidewalk. Other improvements, generally considered to be great public benefits — fixed awnings, for instance — often require payment of annual rent to the municipality for use of space OVER the sidewalk.
As a practical matter, shifting liability to the property owner is very much a libertarian gesture as it allows that party to decide the level of risk they are willing to accept. Don’t shovel the snow? OK so long as you get away with it and no one slips, falls etc.
The two other choices are:
1.public is responsible; adjacent property owner allows dangerous condition to arise with no concern, etc. etc. Public pays.
2. No one is responsible. Nothings gets done.
Take your choice.
It must be me. I fail to understand why people who are in favor of less state involvement and less money being taken from them would object to this.
It’s fine to talk about wanting as little state involvement in one’s life as possible and keeping as much money away from the state as possible. However, if it just stays talk, nothing will change.
If the state doesn’t do something either you and your fellow citizens take responsibility for doing it, or it doesn’t get done at all. Citizens should decide what must be done and who will do it. Want to keep as many of these decisions away from our politicians as possible.
In a perfect world, we’d need no laws requiring people to do anything. People would do whatever they felt like doing and we could assume they’d not do anything to harm anyone. For example, we could just assume everyone driving a car would act in a responsible manner so we could eliminate all traffic laws. Or, we could assume everyone will be friendly and we’d get rid of all law enforcement.
Since we don’t live in a perfect world, we – the citizens – create laws we think are in the common interest, especially where safety is concerned. Just because we’re living in a world that has gone crazy with laws that are ‘for our good’, doesn’t make all laws like this bad.
With the shovelling example. Sometime in either my state’s history, or the individual towns’ I’ve lived in history, people – citizens – decided it was desirable to have well-shovelled sidewalks in the winter. They wanted everyone to be able to walk as safely as possible.
Being New England, they wanted this done as cheaply as possible. It was decided – by the citizens – to require property and business owners to keep their sidewalks clear. The town has a smaller crew that takes care of municipal – only areas (library, town hall, schools, etc.). Result is lower taxes and clear sidewalks in winter.
The citizens gave the town the right to enforce their will. So, the town does and requires everyone to shovel the sidewalk in winter. As I stated, you can choose not to. Town will do it and send you the bill.
The trend we have now, and have had for a while is that people expect the state to do/provide more and more. They also want the state to keep us safe from every harm they can get passed into law.
More state agencies. More taxes. More intrusion into your life. More state control. It’s getting worse, not better as people are further removed from the idea of personal responsibility for the common good.
When we couple the idea we are responsible for only what we feel like, or only ourselves, with the unrealistic idea that any law that tells us what to do is bad, we get many citizens behaving badly towards others. They may not mean to. May not have thought their action or inaction would harm anyone. Sometimes it does.
There are also some people just don’t care because they feel entitled to do only what they want, when they want. The heck with everyone else. Society *owes them* -and- *we* must give them what we owe them, or they’ll take it.
Unfortunately, this is reinforced by state workers who have also lost the idea of personal responsibility. If Johnny gets into trouble, it’s because of a whole variety of reasons and society must take care of Johnny so he doesn’t do it again.
This is what I see in society today. People focusing on me-me-me and expecting everyone else, represented by the state, to focus on them too.
No personal responsibility. No idea they should act for the common good. More laws to ‘keep us safe’ from ourselves and others. More money to take care of people who expect to be taken care of.
I know shovelling your sidewalk is a small thing, in terms of reinforcing the idea of individual responsibility for the common good. But, I want to reinforce this idea any and every way we can.
I want less governmental control and lower taxes.
One way that will happen is for citizens to take more responsibility for doing things themselves.
Small example:
Our town was going to raise the tax rate on home owners. We have a state law, hard-fought by citizens, that only allows your town to charge you 2.5% of your home’s value in taxes. If a town wants more, it must be approved, via ballot in that town.
The citizens who wanted to raise the rate were well funded and organized. Included were most town employees and the teacher’s union. Big rallies, lots of ads, flyers, a store front in the middle of town, etc.
The citizens who didn’t want the rate changed were not well funded. But, we were resourceful and challenged. One thing we did was split the town into various sections, making certain people responsible for certain sections. Then we made phone calls.
As we called people, there were many in town who didn’t want the rate raised. We asked them if they would be willing to volunteer their time to help with the campaign. It was amazing the number of people who said no, yet were very worried about the rise in property taxes. They were glad *we* were taking care of things.
Why did so many people not feel responsible to help? It’s their town, their money. I can’t understand why so many people are content to have others do for them and not help themselves. I think it’s partly due to people being used to the idea they are not personally responsible. Someone else will do it.
We did win, but just barely. The other side will bring this up again because it was so close. What would happen if everyone felt someone else would do it and nobody did? One thing we’d have is much higher property taxes.
Chris, don’t you see how these two ideas conflict on a very fundamental level?
“in favor of less state involvement”
“It was decided – by the citizens – to require…”
Humbar is the most recent, but all of you who are bashing on Chris are being reactionary.
I try to avoid flaming folks, but you’re being pretty stupid too.
What’s next? Revoking traffic laws because you don’t want to be told how to drive? Revoking criminal statutes because you don’t want the state saying you can’t go killing people?
Icy sidewalks are dangerouse, especially to the elderly or handicapped. If an old woman slips and falls on your sidewalk, what are you going to say? “Hey, granny, don’t you know you’re old? You should never have left the house, because I’d rather see you slip and break your hip than shovel my goddamn sidewalk.”
Democracy is how the game is played boys and girls. Society decides what is required for everyday life. Things like water, electricity, traffic lights and clear sidewalks. Once that decision is made, someone has to provide it, citizens or the government (through taxes).
Which do you prefer?
This is why the Libertarian Party will NEVER win a major election. They complain over and over “If only the world were different; If only we were king for the day to organize society the RIGHT way; If only human nature wasn’t the way it was.”
Well, that will never happen, and until you accept that people want clear sidewalks, and are willing to fine your ass to get them, you’re not going to get anywhere in politics.
Politics is deadly force by reasonabe means. Don’t forget that.
If I couldn’t call the cops and report you for not shovelling your sidewalk, my only option would be to come over and beat you with the shovel until you’re a good citizen. And don’t say that’s what you want a gun for, because I have a gun too, and there’s more people who support clear sidewalks than support being an unfriendly curmudgeon.
Now, isn’t getting a ticket civilized? Much better than the alternative.
Because what you don’t understand is that my Aunt in the mountains of North Carolina isn’t required to shovel her walk because no one ever walks on it. She’s miles from any neighbor, and they all have 4*4 pickups anyway. Here is New York, I have to walk on my neighbors sidewalk every day. I don’t have a choice, and that gives me a say in how he keeps it.
That’s Democracy boys and girls, and property rights 101.
Now, I’ve seen Alex’s post. I know some of you think that getting involved in politics is somewhat dirty (and it is, don’t get me wrong), but if you aren’t involved, someone else is making these decisions for you. Get involved, but don’t fight reality.
It will crush you and not even notice.
Error 1: Conscripting people is not a ‘private sector solution’. It is a public sector solution. That is not my opinion, it is a fact.
Error 2: The notion that if the states does not do something that people want done, it will not get done.
If enough people really want the sidewalks cleared, then they are surely willing to pay for someone to do it on a commercial basis. Either you think markets work or you do not. The notion it is axiomatic that the ‘free rider problem’ means only the state can provide essential services is bunk. How do you explain things like the Royal National Lifeboat Institution which provides all of the British Isles cover without a single penny of tax money or state assistance?
The fact you may approve of being conscripted does not change the fact you are forced to act by political interaction, not social interaction. I am not sure why the fact this political coercions is democratically sanctified is meant to make it okay. Democratic coercion is still just a plurality compelling a minority. Unlike laws against murder or robbery, which are backing up the rights of individuals not to be murdered or robbed (the right to not have things done to you), laws conscripting labour however are just a matter of economic expediency and compelling people to do what you want them to do. It is not volunteerism, it is compulsion. Yes, the laws may be democratically sanctified and yes, that is how the democratic game is played, so what? That is exactly why I do not support modern democratic politics. The US Constitution’s ambitions limiting of democratic politics had the right idea about placing whole swathes of civil society beyond politics but clearly, not only did it not go far enough, it has been rolled back so far as to be largely meaningless today.
As for the system crushing me if I do not participate, well, I have news for you… I have moved much of my business dealings off-shore where I do not get regulated and get taxed even less… I can penalize the people who want to tax me by taking my economic activity elsewhere and that is exactly what I have done. The jobs I generate go elsewhere too and lots of other entrepreneurs like me do exactly the same. I am pissed off but I do feel very crushed. It’s a big world and it gets easier by the day for people to do business where they are penalized the least.