Who pays? The cost of government decisions

One weekend a year – of course, because fireworks users are so responsible.

Maybe you can put a call out to the community for a grieving family who you can meet with. My dogs and cats survived the weekend so I’m afraid I can’t help you personally.

@ threepaws – while you enjoy the fireworks this week, i’ll continue to put up with barking dogs that disturb my sleep, soil my yard and harass me as I walk down the footpath – and that happens all year round, not one weekend a year.

And I’m happy to debate with any pet owner why my choice of pleasure is just as valid as theirs.

threepaws said :

I’d love you to explain to a family who has lost their beloved pet why you think your enjoyment is more important than the life of their animal.

Can you actually set this up?

jakez said :

Not at all. They don’t have to do it they are freely choosing to do it.

The RSPCA could have shut up shop and let terrified dogs run the streets. They chose not to because (despite some philosophical failings) they are people with a passion and a mission and they want to do good. They have freely chosen to expend a certain amount of resources to achieve a certain amount of good. Their reward is the good that they have done, no more and no less.

To ask for compensation now would be immoral and akin to mowing someones lawn without their permission and then knocking on the door and feeling entitled to recompense.

Had the pound been open on the weekend, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Then it would have been a choice for the RSPCA to open.

threepaws said :

I’d love you to explain to a family who has lost their beloved pet why you think your enjoyment is more important than the life of their animal.

Why has this hypothetical family lost their beloved pet?
Oh thats right, they forgot to look after it by not securing their yard.
And that’s my fault how?

Well, I like to think I do a lot for stimulating the economy with all the beers I purchase. The government really should have paid for that, not me, so I’m sending them an itemised bill.

Duke said :

The point is, threepaws, fireworks, like dogs have the potential to harm but also to bring enormous joy to those around them.

Nobody would seriously call for the ban of dogs, despite the number of deaths and injuries attributed to them every year, and the noise they create, because the majority of dogs are well trained and have responsible owners. It would be unreasonable to ban all dogs because of the irresponsible actions of a few.

I think people who enjoy fireworks would like the same consideration from dog owners.

If fireworks users showed some consideration for the tens of thousands of people who don’t use them, then perhaps you would have a valid argument. When I’m listening to the fireworks going off tonight, I’ll make sure that I remember how considerate people are.

The fact remains that restrictions and regulations do not work, and this archaic pastime will continue to torture animals and annoy people as long as the public are freely able to buy fireworks.

I’d love you to explain to a family who has lost their beloved pet why you think your enjoyment is more important than the life of their animal.

Not at all. They don’t have to do it they are freely choosing to do it.

The RSPCA could have shut up shop and let terrified dogs run the streets. They chose not to because (despite some philosophical failings) they are people with a passion and a mission and they want to do good. They have freely chosen to expend a certain amount of resources to achieve a certain amount of good. Their reward is the good that they have done, no more and no less.

To ask for compensation now would be immoral and akin to mowing someones lawn without their permission and then knocking on the door and feeling entitled to recompense.

jakez said :

weeziepops said :

If we were talking about even one child being maimed or killed, fireworks would be banned tomorrow regardless of whether the child’s parents had provided a safe environment.

It could be my child and I would not call for their banning, whether I had provided the safest or most dangerous environment possible. The fundamental individual liberty of every human being is far more important and inviolable than the life of myself or the life of my child.

“Far more needing” NGOs and the “rightful and proper place” of animals – these are both subjective issues. Clearly you and I differ greatly in this regard.

That is very true, which is probably why such organisations should only be funded voluntarily. As such those who value animal welfare above all else can exclusively donate to thus organisations (RSPCA, WWF etc). Those who value the welfare of humans can donate to those organisations (Kiva, MSF, World Vision). Those who value both can donate to both in accordance with their individual preferences. I am an example of the latter.

That situation, and using non coercive pursuasion to attract support for causes is surely a much better and more moral scenario than having individuals war over control of the guns of government, in order to get their hands onto some of that sweet sweet coercively colllected tax revenue honey.

Again jakez, if a charity must supplement the services of an understaffed and underfunded government department, shouldn’t they be compensated?

weeziepops said :

If we were talking about even one child being maimed or killed, fireworks would be banned tomorrow regardless of whether the child’s parents had provided a safe environment.

It could be my child and I would not call for their banning, whether I had provided the safest or most dangerous environment possible. The fundamental individual liberty of every human being is far more important and inviolable than the life of myself or the life of my child.

“Far more needing” NGOs and the “rightful and proper place” of animals – these are both subjective issues. Clearly you and I differ greatly in this regard.

That is very true, which is probably why such organisations should only be funded voluntarily. As such those who value animal welfare above all else can exclusively donate to thus organisations (RSPCA, WWF etc). Those who value the welfare of humans can donate to those organisations (Kiva, MSF, World Vision). Those who value both can donate to both in accordance with their individual preferences. I am an example of the latter.

That situation, and using non coercive pursuasion to attract support for causes is surely a much better and more moral scenario than having individuals war over control of the guns of government, in order to get their hands onto some of that sweet sweet coercively colllected tax revenue honey.

The point is, threepaws, fireworks, like dogs have the potential to harm but also to bring enormous joy to those around them.

Nobody would seriously call for the ban of dogs, despite the number of deaths and injuries attributed to them every year, and the noise they create, because the majority of dogs are well trained and have responsible owners. It would be unreasonable to ban all dogs because of the irresponsible actions of a few.

I think people who enjoy fireworks would like the same consideration from dog owners.

S4anta, they would have their head stuffed and nailed to the wall of a Melbourne pub, painted green with pink and blue spots.

Do you regard the raising of funds through taxes as coercion or does this only apply to a list of things that you believe should be done by government and are currently being carried out by the non government sector? Other people have a different list of what is appropriate for support.

I regard the raising of funds through taxes as coercion yes, although until recently I was a Lockean classical liberal and thus allowed a very small number of items for taxation that went to the heart of governance under the Lockean concept of a social contract. Judicial system, police, defence, roads. I’m happy to fight this battle on either ground.

It is precisely that other people have a different list of what is appropriate that I make my stand. That my list is different to there list is exactly why I wish to allow them to follow their list with their money, and I follow my list with my money. Pursuasion and voluntary interaction making up the ebb and flow of society.

Governments support all tax deductible organisations by forgoing some of the tax of the donors and a lot of others carrying out valuable work in the community rely on direct grants because their donor base is not large enough for the tasks they undertake and also so must rely on a large amount of voluntary labour.

Yes, I did a year of tax law so I am aware of that information. I am at the helm of a not for profit organisation now and it would be far easier to suckle at the teat of the Godfather however we do not because we have principles to follow. There are many organisations and many potential organisations that cannot exist with their present levels of voluntary support. That is as it should be. Some of them I would lament and attempt to resurrect, some of them I would not.

It is not much use talking about user pays because almost all the animals assisted by animal welfare organisations can’t pay.

The users are the animal owners (in terms of security of their property), those who buy animals (in terms of gaining property), and those that donate time and money (in terms of the utility they receive from engaging in such causes they believe in).

Duke – If you contact the pound, who deal with dangerous dogs, or the RSPCA who no doubt see them as well, you will find that dogs deemed dangerous are destroyed before they have a chance to kill or main somebody.

There is legislation in place to deal with dangerous dogs.

I would argue that having fireworks in the ACT is not the result of a government decision. It is very much the result of its lack of a decision, and the lack of the guts to make one.

threepaws said :

Duke said :

weeziepops said :

If we were talking about even one child being maimed or killed, fireworks would be banned tomorrow regardless of whether the child’s parents had provided a safe environment.

“Far more needing” NGOs and the “rightful and proper place” of animals – these are both subjective issues. Clearly you and I differ greatly in this regard.

Let’s not go there weezie. How many children and adults are maimed or killed by dogs every each year? Are you suggesting we ban dogs too?

Dogs that kill or maim people are then killed themselves by relevant authorities, so let’s not go there either.

So we should only destroy dangerous dogs after they have killed or disfigured somebody?

peterh said :

S4anta said :

threepaws said :

I think what you said is harsh. Their ‘rightful and proper’ place in society is not decided by them, as they cannot speak for themselves. It is a shame that charities like the RSPCA have to exist at all.

Where would their rightful place be prior to domestication, in a backyard?

I would have thought hunting in packs, killing humans…

And then we would be baiting or shooting the said wild dogs to protect humans and their stock. Oh, hang on…. we already do that

Duke said :

weeziepops said :

If we were talking about even one child being maimed or killed, fireworks would be banned tomorrow regardless of whether the child’s parents had provided a safe environment.

“Far more needing” NGOs and the “rightful and proper place” of animals – these are both subjective issues. Clearly you and I differ greatly in this regard.

Let’s not go there weezie. How many children and adults are maimed or killed by dogs every each year? Are you suggesting we ban dogs too?

Dogs that kill or maim people are then killed themselves by relevant authorities, so let’s not go there either.

S4anta said :

threepaws said :

I think what you said is harsh. Their ‘rightful and proper’ place in society is not decided by them, as they cannot speak for themselves. It is a shame that charities like the RSPCA have to exist at all.

Where would their rightful place be prior to domestication, in a backyard?

I would have thought hunting in packs, killing humans…

threepaws said :

I think what you said is harsh. Their ‘rightful and proper’ place in society is not decided by them, as they cannot speak for themselves. It is a shame that charities like the RSPCA have to exist at all.

Where would their rightful place be prior to domestication, in a backyard?

weeziepops said :

If we were talking about even one child being maimed or killed, fireworks would be banned tomorrow regardless of whether the child’s parents had provided a safe environment.

“Far more needing” NGOs and the “rightful and proper place” of animals – these are both subjective issues. Clearly you and I differ greatly in this regard.

Well perhaps you ought start thinking about the homeless, at risk and sick children before hammering on about the rights of animals. They do deserve a voice, but in moderation and not the expense of a large proprtion of the taxing paying public on this issue.

For the record, I think you and I do differ slightly but not that much, in regards to those subjective defintions.

weeziepops said :

If we were talking about even one child being maimed or killed, fireworks would be banned tomorrow regardless of whether the child’s parents had provided a safe environment.

“Far more needing” NGOs and the “rightful and proper place” of animals – these are both subjective issues. Clearly you and I differ greatly in this regard.

Let’s not go there weezie. How many children and adults are maimed or killed by dogs every each year? Are you suggesting we ban dogs too?

65% of Canberran’s own a pet. All of the animals that go to the RSPCA have come from someone, and go to someone, so obviously they don’t just deal with animals.

I think what you said is harsh. Their ‘rightful and proper’ place in society is not decided by them, as they cannot speak for themselves. It is a shame that charities like the RSPCA have to exist at all.

I think you will find thatmost of the ‘more deserving’ human based NGO’s receive federal funding as well, unlike the RSPCA.

If we were talking about even one child being maimed or killed, fireworks would be banned tomorrow regardless of whether the child’s parents had provided a safe environment.

“Far more needing” NGOs and the “rightful and proper place” of animals – these are both subjective issues. Clearly you and I differ greatly in this regard.

The RSPCA can a take a hit for this one. With all due respect to them, there are far more needing NGO’s who deal far more vexing issues, who are forced to man the coal face of their respective issue during times of urgent need and rarely get the sufficient funding to do this.

And thats even before you look at the simple fact they are animals. It sounds harsh, but lets not forget what they are. Since Grug the cave man taught the wolf to bark rather than howl, and the oxen to stay near the camp fire at night so he didn’t have to battle the mammoth and other random mega fauna for a feed these animals were here to perform a role in our society. If we are to include and respect them in our laws and their place with us in the civilised era, their rightful and proper place needs to be considered.

jakez said :

No I don’t think it should be Government funded. I think things should be funded without the use of force. Just because something is ‘good’ doesn’t mean it should be funded through coercion.

Do you regard the raising of funds through taxes as coercion or does this only apply to a list of things that you believe should be done by government and are currently being carried out by the non government sector? Other people have a different list of what is appropriate for support.

Governments support all tax deductible organisations by forgoing some of the tax of the donors and a lot of others carrying out valuable work in the community rely on direct grants because their donor base is not large enough for the tasks they undertake and also so must rely on a large amount of voluntary labour.

It is not much use talking about user pays because almost all the animals assisted by animal welfare organisations can’t pay.

What sort of taxes do we have on fireworks at the moment? Perhaps we should bung another one on there and split the proceeds between the pound, the fireys and some nice public artwork.

If people looked after their animals properly, we wouldn’t need the RSPCA. They are there to pick up after failed pet owners every day of the year, not just on cracker night. It’s a necessary service which the government does not fully provide, so some government support seems sensible as for them to provide this service would be more expensive.

Teh question of event-holders contributing to public costs resulting from those events is interesting, especially in today’s climate of “user pays”.

Does anyone really think fireworks will not be let off again until the next sanctioned period? People may plan for the Queen’s B’day weekend and keep their pets inside, but what about all the other times?

You can secure a yard 363 days a year but the fireworks weekend is a whole new ball game. Unfortunately, pet owners don’t seem to realise what their animals are capable of when they are terrified.

mutley said :

Maybe the people who didn’t look after their pets properly could fund the extra hours required to pick up and look after them?

Yes, if your dog is properly locked up in your secure yard, the RSPCA would have very little extra to do on the long weekend.

Maybe the people who didn’t look after their pets properly could fund the extra hours required to pick up and look after them?

I missed the memo. When did we change from governments that banned things as an exception from the norm to governments that allow things as an exception to the norm. Is this something to do with Ivan Canberrovitch?

threepaws said :

I think what weeziepops is saying is that the RSPCA does not exist to supplement the work that the government pound should be doing. Why does an animal welfare charity have to do this work with stray animals?

Maybe the government can increase the funding for the pound, and take some of the strain off the RSPCA. Would this be more acceptable?

It doesn’t have to do that work, and nobody is forcing it to. It freely chose to open because it felt it was the right thing to do and it was in accordance with its organisation mission. Good on them.

Your alternative is less acceptable. The RSPCA (ignoring the 10% Govt funding) is voluntarily supported and does this part of its work without the use of coercion. The Government pound is entirely funded through coercive means.

I think what weeziepops is saying is that the RSPCA does not exist to supplement the work that the government pound should be doing. Why does an animal welfare charity have to do this work with stray animals?

Maybe the government can increase the funding for the pound, and take some of the strain off the RSPCA. Would this be more acceptable?

Getting back on-topic, maybe the people who sell fireworks could set up a voluntary donation scheme so that the RSPCA can cover any extended and unexpected costs over the long-weekend?

How about RSPCA save all that hard earned money and put it to other uses over the duration of the entire year? They could do it if a) pet owners who mistreat animals are charged and b) pet owners lock their animals up over the long weekend.

No I don’t think it should be Government funded. I think things should be funded without the use of force. Just because something is ‘good’ doesn’t mean it should be funded through coercion.

I did call the RSPCA. I also use Government roads. I have my beliefs but I do not live in that world. In this world I must make compromises. An organisation that is only f10% funded by a Government is actually pretty good…sadly enough.

It is not their acceptance of taxpayer funding that makes me not like them. I apologise if that is the impression I have given.

You applaud that aspect of their service but don’t think it should be government funded?

What did you do when you lost your dog? Call the RSPCA perchance?

weeziepops said :

Wow – harsh words! What’s your beef with RSPCA and its boss?

If the RSPCA didn’t (or couldn’t due to lack of funds) provide this service what would happen to the animals in distress? They might be picked up and left at the pound. They might be left to wander the streets and face any consequences of same. If you look at the human cost (as so many people think this is far more important than the needs of animals), I am betting there would be a lot of hysterical pet owners out there looking for their pet or treating its wounds or burying it. Animals in need increased in number as a direct result of fireworks usage. Should the government fund the service? I think they should.

I applaud that aspect of their service weeziepops.

When I lost my dog, I didn’t put a gun to the heads of the citizenry of Canberra and ‘politely ask them’ to fund my search and rescue. I expect the same level of courtesy. ps, using the la cosa nostra as an intermediary does not count as the same level of courtesy.

threepaws said :

Last year the pound opened until 10pm. This year they opened from 10am to 2pm on Sunday and Monday (which you may note are not the designated hours for fireworks – makes sense doesn’t it). I guess the RSPCA had no choice but to open seeing as the government pound failed to provide their services to the public.

The RSPCA say that they receive around 10% of their funding from the government. Can you tell me where they boast that they are not government funded or did you make this up?

Perhaps it is you that is dishonest.

God that’s a stretch. It was before the election and I’m vaguely thinking either Canberra Times, RiotACT, websitey kind of things. It was to do with an appeal for support. I’ll have a look in the next couple of days but I’m not sure I’ll be able to find something.

If my original statement implied a continual boast that is not what I meant. I doubt I’ll be able to find it so I’m happy to retract the claim right now although I wasn’t making it up.

It was not what I was referring to when I mentioned dishonesty. That was a private communication.

I think it would make more sense for the RSPCA to close entirely for the old lady’s birthday weekend, or simply tie all the strays up outside the pound (with adequate water and all those basic humane things).

Perhaps they could leave a card, saying this is her birthday present, thus they are now the responsibility of the crown.

Wow – harsh words! What’s your beef with RSPCA and its boss?

If the RSPCA didn’t (or couldn’t due to lack of funds) provide this service what would happen to the animals in distress? They might be picked up and left at the pound. They might be left to wander the streets and face any consequences of same. If you look at the human cost (as so many people think this is far more important than the needs of animals), I am betting there would be a lot of hysterical pet owners out there looking for their pet or treating its wounds or burying it. Animals in need increased in number as a direct result of fireworks usage. Should the government fund the service? I think they should.

10 points for Jakez – ZING!

Last year the pound opened until 10pm. This year they opened from 10am to 2pm on Sunday and Monday (which you may note are not the designated hours for fireworks – makes sense doesn’t it). I guess the RSPCA had no choice but to open seeing as the government pound failed to provide their services to the public.

The RSPCA say that they receive around 10% of their funding from the government. Can you tell me where they boast that they are not government funded or did you make this up?

Perhaps it is you that is dishonest.

Hmm, what should an organisation that boasts about not being Government funded and then takes $200,000 from the Government do?

I guess the premise of your question is whether the Government (and by logical conclusion, the taxpayers of the ACT) has some sort of fiduciary duty to the RSPCA in the situation.

I can’t say how (and this is ignoring my tax hating anarchy loving philosophy) you could find a link. The RSPCA and its supporters felt that it was the right thing to do for their stated mission. That is as it should be and the RSPCA and its supporters should wear the costs for that mission and feel joy joy feelings for it. I would have donated money in times gone by before I realised how authoritarian [expurgated] the organisation and its current head is.