Interesting scene -
The Martian - Deleted Scene #1 - Mark Arrives at Earth [Blu-Ray/DVD 2016]
The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yM2fnXGcr0

On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 1:19:31 PM UTC-6, a425couple wrote:

> The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.

It does align with some views... expressed by Heinlein. But they're
not among his _controversial_ ones, nor are they unique to Heinlein.

As that scene seems like a good, if old-fashioned, way to end a
movie, leaving the audience to feel it was _about_ something, it
seems to me a pity that it _was_ deleted.

John Savard

On 5/11/2021 5:16 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 1:19:31 PM UTC-6, a425couple wrote:
>
>> The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.
>
> It does align with some views... expressed by Heinlein. But they're
> not among his _controversial_ ones, nor are they unique to Heinlein.
>

I hear strong echoes of Robert Heinlein in this scene ...
“Our behavior is different. How often have you seen a headline like
this? -- TWO DIE ATTEMPTING RESCUE OF DROWNING CHILD. If a man gets lost
in the mountains, hundreds will search and often two or three searchers
are killed. But the next time somebody gets lost just as many volunteers
turn out.
Poor arithmetic, but very human. It runs through all our folklore, all
human religions, all our literature--a racial conviction that when one
human needs rescue, others should not count the price.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, "Starship Troopers" (1959)

> As that scene seems like a good, if old-fashioned, way to end a
> movie, leaving the audience to feel it was _about_ something, it
> seems to me a pity that it _was_ deleted.
> John Savard
>

Yes. It would have fit well.

On Tue, 11 May 2021 07:51:26 -0700, a425couple
<a425couple@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/11/2021 5:16 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 1:19:31 PM UTC-6, a425couple wrote:
>>
>>> The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.
>>
>> It does align with some views... expressed by Heinlein. But they're
>> not among his _controversial_ ones, nor are they unique to Heinlein.
>>
>
>I hear strong echoes of Robert Heinlein in this scene ...
> “Our behavior is different. How often have you seen a headline like
>this? -- TWO DIE ATTEMPTING RESCUE OF DROWNING CHILD. If a man gets lost
>in the mountains, hundreds will search and often two or three searchers
>are killed. But the next time somebody gets lost just as many volunteers
>turn out.
>Poor arithmetic, but very human. It runs through all our folklore, all
>human religions, all our literature--a racial conviction that when one
>human needs rescue, others should not count the price.”
>? Robert A. Heinlein, "Starship Troopers" (1959)
>
> > As that scene seems like a good, if old-fashioned, way to end a
> > movie, leaving the audience to feel it was _about_ something, it
> > seems to me a pity that it _was_ deleted.
> > John Savard
> >
>
>Yes. It would have fit well.

In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.

On 5/11/2021 8:16 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 1:19:31 PM UTC-6, a425couple wrote:
>
>> The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.
>
> It does align with some views... expressed by Heinlein. But they're
> not among his _controversial_ ones, nor are they unique to Heinlein.
>
> As that scene seems like a good, if old-fashioned, way to end a
> movie, leaving the audience to feel it was _about_ something, it
> seems to me a pity that it _was_ deleted.
>
> John Savard
>

Thing is the scene is correct we have an instinct
to save those in distress.

But in the scenario spending hundreds of millions to
save one person is more about politicians wanting
to keep their jobs.

And especially wanting to continue milking the whole
'life on Mars' thing for as long as humanly possible
to extend their careers into eternity.

That's why the rovers are deliberately designed
so that they can't prove life is on Mars and
why they deliberately choose sites that are
best for geological, not biological discoveries.

NASA wants their decades long sample return mission
and especially manned landings on the Moon and Mars.

Finding life on Mars would short-circuit all of that
just as the Apollo program disbanded once the big
event happened.

If NASA found life on Mars now, they could flush their
thirty year plan designed to find life after then
not before.

Astrobiologists have little doubt microbes are
to be found on Mars, this conference makes that
clear.

For instance in 2012 the astrobiology conference
had a few dozen posters presented mostly by starry-eyed
graduate students. But look at the last NASA astrobiology
conference in 2017, more papers than you can count
and by top flight universities after the rover landed
at Meridiani and found all those spheres. Spheres that
can't be accounted for without invoking life, btw.

Geology alone can't explain them.

2017 Abscicon Author list (A-K)
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2017/authorindex.cfm

The field didn't explode like this after the rovers
by accident, they know what they found, microbial life
is almost certainly there just meters below the surface.
And literally the entire northern hemisphere of Mars
just underground is an ideal habitat for microbial life.

A few pics from Mars as teasers.

Can you explain this using only geological explanations?
It's not possible.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG

A Frozen Ocean the Size of the North Sea
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1741.pdf

And this razor flat horizon can only be created by
....recent body of water or ice. This used to be a
shallow underground body of water/ice that dried up
and was later exposed by erosion, it's the bottom
of a shallow underground sea.

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/405/tn/1P164131978EFF5000P2663L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

And this exposed sea floor is coated from horizon
to horizon by the Martian spheres, all coming
in three /uniform/ sizes. Countless billions
of them like these.

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/530/tn/1P175230555EFF5702P2456L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/123/tn/1P139098299EFF2809P2267L5M1_L2L5L5L6L6.jpg.html

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/opportunity_m014.html

https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/105/1M137503553EFF2208P2956M2M1.HTML

You can see their process of growth due to
repeated soaking clearly in the sphere in
the...lower left...of this pic, in
the sphere that has a half shell.

https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/1/m/106/1M137593860EFF2208P2956M2M1.JPG

This stunning pic may show their ongoing
formation. This is a pic of a patch of soft
clay like sphere rich soil.

http://areo.info/mer/opportunity/012/tn/1P129250922EFF0224P2374L5M1_L4L5L5L5L6.jpg.html

Yes, clay on the surface of Mars.

PHY.ORG
Martian 'blueberries' could be clues to presence of life

Previous theories suggested these concretions were formed
by simple chemical reactions without the help of life.
However, new UWA research shows clear evidence that microbes
were essential in their formation.

This raises the possibility that Martian "blueberries" may
not only reveal that water was present on Mars - but life too.

UWA scientists David Wacey and Matt Kilburn used
high-resolution NanoSIMS technology at the University's
Centre for Microscopy, Characterisation and Analysis to
show clear relationships in the Utah concretions between
microbe-like forms and concentrations of biological
elements such as carbon and nitrogen.

Their findings - in collaboration with scientists from
the University of Nebraska - feature on the front cover
of the August issue of the journal Geology.

University of Nebraska Assistant Professor Karrie Weber
said UWA's CMCA facility - which is used to study
everything from early life on Earth to cancer drugs,
plant biology, rocks and soils, and nanotechnology
- was chosen because of its demonstrated success in
identifying microbial fossils.

Read more at:
https://phys.org/news/2012-09-martian-blueberries-clues-presence-life.html#jCp

Journal of Astrobiology and Space Science Reviews,
Vol 1, 40-81, 2019

JournalofAstrobiology.com/EvidenceofLifeonMars.html

Evidence of Life on Mars?

1. Overview: The Evidence

Presented here is a body of evidence and observations which
do not prove but supports the hypothesis Mars was, and is, a
living planet hosting prokaryotes, lichens, and fungi.
This evidence includes:

https://www.astro.umd.edu/~hamilton/teaching/HONR289Vspring19/Handouts/LifeOnMars.pdf

--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1

On Tuesday, 11 May 2021 at 16:20:46 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2021 07:51:26 -0700, a425couple
> <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 5/11/2021 5:16 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 10, 2021 at 1:19:31 PM UTC-6, a425couple wrote:
> >>
> >>> The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.
> >>
> >> It does align with some views... expressed by Heinlein. But they're
> >> not among his _controversial_ ones, nor are they unique to Heinlein.
> >>
> >
> >I hear strong echoes of Robert Heinlein in this scene ...
> > “Our behavior is different. How often have you seen a headline like
> >this? -- TWO DIE ATTEMPTING RESCUE OF DROWNING CHILD. If a man gets lost
> >in the mountains, hundreds will search and often two or three searchers
> >are killed. But the next time somebody gets lost just as many volunteers
> >turn out.
> >Poor arithmetic, but very human. It runs through all our folklore, all
> >human religions, all our literature--a racial conviction that when one
> >human needs rescue, others should not count the price.”
> >? Robert A. Heinlein, "Starship Troopers" (1959)
> >
> > > As that scene seems like a good, if old-fashioned, way to end a
> > > movie, leaving the audience to feel it was _about_ something, it
> > > seems to me a pity that it _was_ deleted.
> > > John Savard
> > >
> >
> >Yes. It would have fit well.
> In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
> those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
> engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
> fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.

If someone was doing something that they shouldn't,
then they may be charged.

Not in that sense here
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55860877>
referring to mountain climbers in Scotland breaching
COVID-19 regulations and being fined and/or charged
with illegal behaviour. Money did change hands.

Mountain rescue operates in Scotland because safe
enjoyment of the mountains brings in money from
visitors, and I think also the teams on the ground are
mostly volunteers and enthusiasts themselves -
not necessarily enjoying going out in the worst
conditions, though. Not having a rescue may happen
if it is dangerously bad for going out to get them.

On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 9:20:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
> those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
> engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
> fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.

Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.

But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
die in that situation.

So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
activities of those who do.

John Savard

On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 9:51:39 AM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:

> That's why the rovers are deliberately designed
> so that they can't prove life is on Mars

I have very little patience for that kind of conspiracy theory...

> and
> why they deliberately choose sites that are
> best for geological, not biological discoveries.

There is another possible reason for that.

> Astrobiologists have little doubt microbes are
> to be found on Mars, this conference makes that
> clear.

One of the first probes sent to Mars took a soil sample, and
put it in a nutrient solution as a simple test for life on Mars,
and it produced a strong - even suspiciously strong - positive
result.

Later investigations turned up the cause: highly reactive
chemicals - perchlorates - on the surface of Mars.

No liquid water, a very thin atmosphere, and chemicals that
are inimical to life over the Martian surface... I would think
that odds are that Mars is as utterly sterile as the Moon.

It's just that we don't know enough to totally rule out life on Mars,
and so it's still worth investigating. But Jupiter may be a likelier
place for life, since it at least has a useful chemistry.

John Savard

On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 9:20:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
>> those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
>> engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
>> fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.
>
>Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
>a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.
>
>But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
>die in that situation.
>
>So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
>fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
>question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
>or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
>activities of those who do.

And this is why conservatives do not want more "help" from the
government. Because ultimately it becomes another excuse to gouge or
control us.

On 5/12/2021 1:28 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 9:51:39 AM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:
>
>> That's why the rovers are deliberately designed
>> so that they can't prove life is on Mars
>
> I have very little patience for that kind of conspiracy theory...
>

Conspiracy theory? Have you looked at the science
packages on the rovers? I have, in detail.

I dare you to show me any instrument on any of the rovers
that could prove life is there now.

And why don't they?

And pictures are not proof. I've been
watching the rover program in detail
since day one. This is not a casual
or uneducated opinion.

Do you deny the lesson of Apollo? Or that
NASA learned that lesson?

>> and
>> why they deliberately choose sites that are
>> best for geological, not biological discoveries.
>
> There is another possible reason for that.
>
>> Astrobiologists have little doubt microbes are
>> to be found on Mars, this conference makes that
>> clear.
>
> One of the first probes sent to Mars took a soil sample, and
> put it in a nutrient solution as a simple test for life on Mars,
> and it produced a strong - even suspiciously strong - positive
> result.

Ancient news and still contradictory results.

>
> Later investigations turned up the cause: highly reactive
> chemicals - perchlorates - on the surface of Mars.
>

That's not the latest findings, your statement is dated
and inaccurate.

> No liquid water,

The soil of almost the entire northern hemisphere of Mars
has up to 50% water/ice just meters below the surface.
The water mostly went underground, not into space.

Did you click the link I provided for evidence
for a frozen body of water the size of the N Sea
currently present on the surface of Mars?

No water? Reading is fundamental

A Frozen Ocean the Size of the North Sea
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/1741.pdf

> a very thin atmosphere,

As one goes deeper underground, the temperatures rise
and so does the protection from solar radiation.

Just a few meters underground is an ideal habitat for
microbes. Warm, wet and with abundant life supporting
minerals. Just the exact recipe for microbes.

> and chemicals that
> are inimical to life over the Martian surface... I would think
> that odds are that Mars is as utterly sterile as the Moon.
>

Did you click this link and peruse the papers
at the following link?

If not you're uninformed, sorry but it's true.
I've been studying the topic of life on Mars
for over a decade.

CLICK HERE, what do you see?

Few fields of science have exploded like
astrobiology post rovers.

2017 Abscicon Author list (A-K)
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/abscicon2017/authorindex.cfm

The field didn't explode like this after the rovers
by accident, they know what they found, microbial life
is almost certainly there just meters below the surface.
And literally the entire northern hemisphere of Mars
just underground is an ideal habitat for microbial life.

Can you explain this using only geological explanations?
It's not possible.
https://mars.nasa.gov/mer/gallery/all/2/m/709/2M189317905EFFAL00P2956M2M1.JPG

Can you explain the above pic using geology?

No one has yet. NO ONE.

HOW CAN THEY ALL BE THE SAME SIZE??? That's a hallmark
of life and virtually impossible via geology or
chemistry alone.

> It's just that we don't know enough to totally rule out life on Mars,
> and so it's still worth investigating. But Jupiter may be a likelier
> place for life, since it at least has a useful chemistry.
>
> John Savard
>

--
https://twitter.com/Non_Linear1

On Monday, 10 May 2021 at 20:19:31 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:
> Interesting scene -
> The Martian - Deleted Scene #1 - Mark Arrives at Earth [Blu-Ray/DVD 2016]
> The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yM2fnXGcr0

My network is limited. What happens? He gets to Earth
and gets invoiced for the equipment he used on Mars
to survive, plus his ride home?

On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 9:20:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
>> those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
>> engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
>> fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.
>
>Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
>a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.
>
>But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
>die in that situation.
>
>So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
>fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
>question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
>or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
>activities of those who do.

The same argument could be used against publicly-funded Fire
Departments.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 12 May 2021 07:08:20 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 10 May 2021 at 20:19:31 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:
>> Interesting scene -
>> The Martian - Deleted Scene #1 - Mark Arrives at Earth [Blu-Ray/DVD 2016]
>> The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yM2fnXGcr0
>
>My network is limited. What happens? He gets to Earth
>and gets invoiced for the equipment he used on Mars
>to survive, plus his ride home?

Doesn't look like it.

But then, this is my main computer, and the sound is ... off.

So I can hear the music I actually /want/ to hear, and not what some
web page or App wants to afflict me with.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 8:08:23 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> My network is limited. What happens? He gets to Earth
> and gets invoiced for the equipment he used on Mars
> to survive, plus his ride home?

No, because he wasn't some reckless private citizen who flew to
Mars on his own for thrills. He was a brave hero going to Mars on
behalf of the U.S. government.

John Savard

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 10:36:39 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 9:20:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> >> In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
> >> those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
> >> engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
> >> fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.

> >Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
> >a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.

> >But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
> >die in that situation.

> >So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
> >fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
> >question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
> >or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
> >activities of those who do.

> The same argument could be used against publicly-funded Fire
> Departments.

It's true some people have more expensive homes than others, and
some people are more careless about fire safety than others.

But there's an important counter-argument here: fire spreads from
one building to the next.

John Savard

In article <ji6n9g5rop261d5k79uu131hgnsuf4cs86@4ax.com>,
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 9:20:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
>>> those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
>>> engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
>>> fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.
>>
>>Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
>>a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.
>>
>>But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
>>die in that situation.
>>
>>So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
>>fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
>>question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
>>or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
>>activities of those who do.
>
>And this is why conservatives do not want more "help" from the
>government. Because ultimately it becomes another excuse to gouge or
>control us.

I don't know if this is still true but at one point Nova Scotia had one
of the best S&R systems in North America. This was because people got
lost in the woods in Nova Scotia at a surprisingly high frequency. I
read an Emergency Preparedness paper on the issue, which admitted there
didn't seem to be an obvious reason why people got lost in NS more often
than elsewhere in Canada (unless it was NS forests being so beautiful
people were distracted wandering through them). At least getting stranded
in the middle of nowhere requiring an expensive rescue was something all
Nova Scotians could enjoy.

The paper didn't touch on this but there's an interesting difference
between people getting lost now and people getting lost 150 years ago,
which is now they die of exposure pretty quickly, whereas 150 years ago
it was starvation once they ran out of fellow campers.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 7:20:40 PM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:

> The paper didn't touch on this but there's an interesting difference
> between people getting lost now and people getting lost 150 years ago,
> which is now they die of exposure pretty quickly, whereas 150 years ago
> it was starvation once they ran out of fellow campers.

Now that _is_ odd. Is it because people don't dress as warmly today?

Or is it because less people know how to make a fire in the woods
without special equipment?

John Savard

On 5/12/2021 7:08 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Monday, 10 May 2021 at 20:19:31 UTC+1, a425couple wrote:
>> Interesting scene -
>> The Martian - Deleted Scene #1 - Mark Arrives at Earth [Blu-Ray/DVD
2016]
>> The scene would very closely align with Heinlein's views.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yM2fnXGcr0
>
> My network is limited.

Interesting.
Can you access Google? or Bing?
I suppose, if it was something important, you could go
to a public library and the staff would help.

> What happens?

Any way, it is a 1 minute scene,
Mark is looking out a big picture window on the
returning space ship,
"I think about the sheer number of people ---
that pulled together to save my sorry ass,
and I can barely comprehend it. The cost of
my survival was in the 100s of millions of $,
just to save a botanist with anti-authority issues,
why bother?? ----"
Transitions to an older Mark sitting on a park
bench overlooking a big green where youth
are training.
"-- because that's what we do. Every human being
has a basic instinct to help each other out.
---- lost hiker, people organize a search ---
-- if an earthquake levels a city, people send
emergency supplies. This instinct is found in
every culture without exception.
And because of it, I had an entire planet on my side."

So, it has definite ties to the message on the last
page from my book, pages 368&9, but kind of, goes further.

Comments include:
Josh T
4 years ago
They shouldn't have taken this part out. It was the moral of the book

Gino
1 year ago (edited)
"I have an entire planet on my side" this was beautiful.

ad set
3 years ago
"...and because of that I had an entire planet on my side". Pretty
powerful stuff, I must say. Sends little shivers down my spine.

Ashish Venkatesh Gad
3 years ago
This scene had an impact, if a person puts race, culture, gender and
wealth aside, and look at each other like human beings and see through
all sufferings, help reach out, this is a beautiful place to be in

Cougarsamurai
3 days ago
If they didn't make the effort to save him NO-ONE would volunteer for
anything ever again! People have to believe they are not disposable.

On Wed, 12 May 2021 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 10:36:39 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 9:20:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> >> In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
>> >> those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
>> >> engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
>> >> fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.
>
>> >Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
>> >a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.
>
>> >But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
>> >die in that situation.
>
>> >So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
>> >fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
>> >question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
>> >or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
>> >activities of those who do.
>
>> The same argument could be used against publicly-funded Fire
>> Departments.
>
>It's true some people have more expensive homes than others, and
>some people are more careless about fire safety than others.
>
>But there's an important counter-argument here: fire spreads from
>one building to the next.

And dead out-of-state/out-of-country hikers kill the tourist industry.

BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
they refused to do anything about it.

Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
Inalienable Right or something.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

In article <7nkq9g9ll7f56eiabbbsgjf4ucn8da96h3@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 May 2021 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 10:36:39 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> >On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 9:20:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> >> In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
>>> >> those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
>>> >> engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
>>> >> fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.
>>
>>> >Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
>>> >a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.
>>
>>> >But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
>>> >die in that situation.
>>
>>> >So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
>>> >fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
>>> >question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
>>> >or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
>>> >activities of those who do.
>>
>>> The same argument could be used against publicly-funded Fire
>>> Departments.
>>
>>It's true some people have more expensive homes than others, and
>>some people are more careless about fire safety than others.
>>
>>But there's an important counter-argument here: fire spreads from
>>one building to the next.
>
>And dead out-of-state/out-of-country hikers kill the tourist industry.
>
>BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
>on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
>individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
>they refused to do anything about it.
>
>Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
>Inalienable Right or something.

At one time the Midway Fire Department would issue door plaques to
houses who subscribed to their services. Though as I recall they were
just printed on cardstock, so I suppose they would probably have gone
up fairly quickly..
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:27:48 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
> on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
> individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
> they refused to do anything about it.

> Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
> Inalienable Right or something.

Maybe he just misunderstood what "voluntary subscription basis" meant.

John Savard

On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:51:10 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:27:48 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> > BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
> > on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
> > individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
> > they refused to do anything about it.

> > Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
> > Inalienable Right or something.

> Maybe he just misunderstood what "voluntary subscription basis" meant.

Because you _are_ right that having fires extinguished is not a right.

It is concievable that a country could be so poor the government could
not afford to institute a fire department from its own revenues. The same
applies to safe drinking water; that isn't a right either. The only absolute
inalienable rights that can exist are negative rights, the right not to be
a victim of force or fraud.

This, however, doesn't mean that the governor of Michigan gets a pass
on Flint.

Although there is no absolute right to safe drinking water that applies to
*all times* and *all places*, it happens that the United States is a rich
country. So if a mainly black area is without safe drinking water due to
actively malicious policies of a senior level of government, violations of
the rights of equity and fair treatment have been committed.

So while safe drinking water may not be a basic human right, it is in
effect a right of black Americans whether in Michigan or Mississippi,
and of Native Americans in Canada as well. It may not have been a
right in ancient Mesopotamia, though.

John Savard

On 5/13/2021 9:48 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <7nkq9g9ll7f56eiabbbsgjf4ucn8da96h3@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 May 2021 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 10:36:39 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 9:20:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
>>>>>> those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
>>>>>> engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
>>>>>> fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.
>>>
>>>>> Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
>>>>> a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.
>>>
>>>>> But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
>>>>> die in that situation.
>>>
>>>>> So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
>>>>> fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
>>>>> question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
>>>>> or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
>>>>> activities of those who do.
>>>
>>>> The same argument could be used against publicly-funded Fire
>>>> Departments.
>>>
>>> It's true some people have more expensive homes than others, and
>>> some people are more careless about fire safety than others.
>>>
>>> But there's an important counter-argument here: fire spreads from
>>> one building to the next.
>>
>> And dead out-of-state/out-of-country hikers kill the tourist industry.
>>
>> BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
>> on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
>> individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
>> they refused to do anything about it.
>>
>> Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
>> Inalienable Right or something.
>
> At one time the Midway Fire Department would issue door plaques to
> houses who subscribed to their services. Though as I recall they were
> just printed on cardstock, so I suppose they would probably have gone
> up fairly quickly..
>
The subscription based fire service was the norm in the US way back
when. The problems with it are what led to it becoming a municipal
responsibility. (Just little things like fire companies fighting in the
street over who would get the money from the desperate homeowner who'd
home was on fire, lighting the buildings of subscribers to competing
companies' on fire, that kind of thing.)

--
Troll, troll, troll your post gently down the thread
Angrily, angrily, angrily, the net's a nut's scream.

On Thu, 13 May 2021 11:01:59 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/13/2021 9:48 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> In article <7nkq9g9ll7f56eiabbbsgjf4ucn8da96h3@4ax.com>,
>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 May 2021 13:15:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 10:36:39 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 May 2021 22:16:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 9:20:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> In our modern world though every time someone is rescued there are
>>>>>>> those who shout that he should be sent a bill and everybody else who
>>>>>>> engages in such activity should be required to have a license with
>>>>>>> fees sufficient to pay for the inevitable rescues.
>>>>
>>>>>> Well, in our modern world, instead of local volunteers trying to rescue
>>>>>> a lost hiker, professionals paid by our tax dollars are doing this.
>>>>
>>>>>> But note that what they're _not_ advocating is that we just let people
>>>>>> die in that situation.
>>>>
>>>>>> So while, on the one hand, we do have an instinct not to abandon our
>>>>>> fellow man to death, should that be preventable - we also legitimately
>>>>>> question whether people who can't even afford to go mountain climbing
>>>>>> or whatever should have to pay taxes to subsidize the risky recreational
>>>>>> activities of those who do.
>>>>
>>>>> The same argument could be used against publicly-funded Fire
>>>>> Departments.
>>>>
>>>> It's true some people have more expensive homes than others, and
>>>> some people are more careless about fire safety than others.
>>>>
>>>> But there's an important counter-argument here: fire spreads from
>>>> one building to the next.
>>>
>>> And dead out-of-state/out-of-country hikers kill the tourist industry.
>>>
>>> BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
>>> on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
>>> individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
>>> they refused to do anything about it.
>>>
>>> Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
>>> Inalienable Right or something.
>>
>> At one time the Midway Fire Department would issue door plaques to
>> houses who subscribed to their services. Though as I recall they were
>> just printed on cardstock, so I suppose they would probably have gone
>> up fairly quickly..
>>
>The subscription based fire service was the norm in the US way back
>when. The problems with it are what led to it becoming a municipal
>responsibility. (Just little things like fire companies fighting in the
>street over who would get the money from the desperate homeowner who'd
>home was on fire, lighting the buildings of subscribers to competing
>companies' on fire, that kind of thing.)

It was the norm in much of the world for centuries. May still be,
some places.

I once had a friend who grew up in Tangier, and when she was little
the _police_ were run on a subscription basis -- if a shopkeeper
didn't pay his monthly fee and display his subscription plaque, he was
basically asking to be robbed.

No problems with competition, though -- the police chief had a royal
license, and anyone else who tried to run a similar protection racket
would find representatives of the Moroccan army asking rude questions.

--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Tom Derringer & the Steam-Powered Saurians.

On Thu, 13 May 2021 10:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:51:10 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 10:27:48 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> > BTW, I have read a story about a volunteer fire department that worked
>> > on a voluntary subscription basis. A non-subscriber ("rugged
>> > individualist") was appalled to find that, when his house caught fire,
>> > they refused to do anything about it.
>
>> > Apparently, he thought having his house fire extinguished was an
>> > Inalienable Right or something.
>
>> Maybe he just misunderstood what "voluntary subscription basis" meant.
>
>Because you _are_ right that having fires extinguished is not a right.
>
>It is concievable that a country could be so poor the government could
>not afford to institute a fire department from its own revenues. The same
>applies to safe drinking water; that isn't a right either. The only absolute
>inalienable rights that can exist are negative rights, the right not to be
>a victim of force or fraud.

Sorry to interrupt you in mid-tirade, but I don't think you know what
an "inalienable right" actually /is/.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."