Power Company Cuts Power… Woman Dies

I agree. It is sad. It also reflects an apparent lack of this woman's taking responsibility for herself by, as you suggest, asking for help. If the grocery store would not provide her with groceries because she would not pay for them, how would it be any different than this situation?

As I've said elsewhere, the idea of "rights" is a false idea. It is a unilateral claim against others. We don't have rights unless we engage in a contract with someone. This woman may have thought she had a "right to life." She didn't, as this situation proves. We're all here by chance, by the grace of nature, and we can only thrive by treating each other with respect and cooperation. Love is another word for it.

- NonE

A contract isn't something set in stone, ask any chinese and you will know a contract is merely the first agreed upon common ground. A contract is simply a codified agreement and so can be changed at any time when the parties previously in agreement do not agree anymore.

Anything else would be authoritarian and a form of voluntary slavery.

Did the power company know she had vital equipment running?

Obviously, if they did, this situation should have been handled far differently. Even if the power company did not want to provide services charitably, they should have made the situation very public, and certainly someone would have stepped up.

I doubt the power company knew … I mean, who's so heartless as to throw the switch on someone like that?

Refusing to provide someone service because they refuse to pay is completely legitimate. The power company did nothing morally wrong (other than being a government monopoly-protected entity, of course =)

JW- would you care to explain your position that "you people are fucking monsters?"

Are you suggesting, JW, that the power company has an obligation to provide resources to those who refuse to compensate them for the work?

If the lady had told the company that her life would be in danger if the power went off, I would hope that the company would work with her to resolve the situation. However, they are under no moral obligation to do so if she refuses to pay.

Tragic, to be sure, and I feel terrible that the lady died as a result of her choices.

-Erik

Also, what did this lady do during blackouts?

If I receive a vital service, like insulin shipments, for example, I need to take steps to insure there's backup. Yes, if the power company knew, they obviously should have handed the situation far differently, but ultimately, ensuring that I receive the services I need is my own responsibility.

If she's in financial trouble, she needs to reach out. I know, if she was truly broke, that I'd have chipped in to help pay her electric bill.

I'm patently aware of your "libertarian" philosophy. I don't buy it. You're like any other conservative ideology that is seeking a moral justification for selfishness.

The company dropped the ball, plain and simple, and rushing to their defense because of some idiotic notion of "market principals" is just disgusting. A woman has died, but you continue the clarion call of rugged individualism using asinine analogies like grocery shopping. The woman's medical condition was clearly marked on her account, but the company has an expiration date for such claims?

How the hell is that justifiable?

Yes, you are monsters. Because in a huge example of irony, you've extracted the human element from this tragic demonstration of coercive force (pay or die) and made excuses for it.

Your proposition, much like most of the libertarian argument, fails to take into account the unequal distribution of wealth and property. Abstaining from popular programs in favor of private ones would lead an already embattled educational system into the gutter along with anyone who couldn’t afford to remove themselves from it.

I completely disagree. Competition improves quality. Imagine if they eliminated all restaurants in keene but one, and then forced everyone to go there once per week, whether they wanted to or not? Do you think the service and quality at that restaurant would improve, with no choice? What do you think would happen to prices? What about all the people who don't like that particular style of food?

Free choice is vital to accountability. Whenever you have a forced monopoly, by the government or otherwise, accountability goes out the window. You can get a far, far better education for far, far less than the 13-18K per year per student spent in Keene — the only reason they get away with providing this inferior service for a very high price, is because people are forced to pay for it, and not allowed to take their kid and their money elsewhere.

At the very least, as an intermediate step, allow people to take the money that would go to the government education, and send their kid somewhere else, if they prefer. This would have happened long ago if people's priority really was quality of education for kids.

How is this not coercive?

I believe you're using the word "coercive" inaccurately in a lot of cases. "Coercion" means somebody threatening violence against another, in order to force them to behave a certain way.

If a person is in a difficult circumstance, simply because they lack means, that's certainly something we should all work to avoid, and help them out of, but that doesn't mean someone's coercing them.

I’m glad you at least understand the human element involved. I was perhaps hasty in my denunciation,

Understandable. I could see how a couple of the comments could have sounded a little unfeeling.

As you say, it's important not to reduce things to purely an intellectual exercise, but rather to remember that real people are involved, to value their well being very highly, and to do one's best to help the situation.

but are we not both here because of passionate beliefs?

Yep, and thanks for being willing to have a conversation .

JW- I appreciate you taking the time to back up your earlier post.

It seems some facts may be in dispute or unknown. I'm not sure if the power company knew about her condition. However, even if they did know, and they sent warning of the overdue bill and the resulting consequences, I would not blame them for cutting off the power.

The company is not responsible to her when she breaks her end of the contract, just as she wouldn't be responsible to pay her bill to the company if it broke its end of the contract.

Would it be okay if, say, some of the power company employees were starving due to lost wages and thus forced the lady to pay them even when no power was being sent to her? Of course not.

To suggest that the power company should continue powering the lady's home is to say that workers and/or owners at the power company should be compelled to work without pay. This is called slavery. No person should be subjected to slavery for the benefit of someone else (unless its some type of reparation for past aggression which clearly was not the case here).

Please remember that it is not "market principles" that are being defended here. There is no reason to convolute the argument in such a way. What is being defended here is the principle of liberty. The fact that a free-market situation occurs when one respects this principle is irrelevant (though extremely fortunate, in my opinion).

Regarding the "unequal distribution of wealth" argument… let me pose a question to you. Should wives be distributed in an egalitarian fashion? To be sure, some men have better wives than others, and would it not be more equitable to forcefully distribute them in a more "socially responsible" manner?

You may shrug off my question as preposterous… but I'd encourage you to consider that precisely the same preposterous situation occurs when you try to forcefully distribute property. Also, please don't misconstrue my hypothetical example as equating women with property. Of the two of us, I'm the one who doesn't believe in slavery, in whole or in part.

Again, I do appreciate you coming back to comment.

-Erik

I disagree with the author's position, while retaining my self-identification as a philosophical libertarian, for the following reason:

Most Libertarians have done a very good job explaining the dangers of coercive authority. The mistake that is constantly made, however, is the application of these dangers ONLY to government entities; the fact is, private corporate entities can exercise coercive power that is just as liberty-restrictive as any government, and the effect on the citizenry is just as opporessive and deadly. the fact is, utility companies are monopolies, and the citizens have no real choice in electricity providers. The Market Power is terribly skewed, and standard consumer-producer relationships do not exist.

Libertarians need to get their heads out of the ideological ivory tower, and look at how the reality of their theories plays out in real life. The theories are SOUND, but they are often applied with such a blind eye that they lose their validity.

"..because of the state…"

Not necessarily. Electricity production is almost unique among producers. For almost ANY product, producers experience dimishing marginal returns when they get too big and try to 'dominate.' This enables new start-ups to engage in competition. Electrict production, however, experiences Economies of Scale: the more electricity they produce, the lower the cost of each additional kilowatt hour to produce. There is a natural growth towards monopoly status based on costs incurred. Once the monopoly is established, it is in the position of charging abnormally high prices, while competition is virtually impossible.

Most states 'created' monopolies for two reasons: first, to make sure that society benefitted from the low per-kilowatt-production costs associated with monopoly producers WHILE preventing the inevitable price increases associated with monopoly status (hence, public utility commissions)…

And second, because it makes no sense for 10 different companies to EACH by stretching utility wires down every street.

There IS an alternative, and that is the Maine Deregulation model, whereby the wires and power grid are all owned by the state-granted service monopoly, Central Maine Power. However, residents and businesses are permitted to contract with *any* of the electric generators in the state for the best 'deal' based on their usage.

I see the debate go back and forth and sideways and back the other way. I can't seem to fill in the missing details… yet

- if the lady needed an oxygen tent who's to say she could even feed herself? Could she read? We are talking about a lack of oxygen the most vital bit of sustenance a person needs… and without that who knows how a person is affected?

- her caregiver bears some responsibility. how much I am unsure

- maybe she wanted to die. ever consider that? if this is the case then nobody is at fault. Also if this was true would any libertarian deny her that? I wouldn't.

My gut feeling is her caregiver has some vital info to add. How about finding a way to encourage the power company to send someone over to talk to the customer if they notice A) the medical thingy on the account and B) note there has been no response to the bills. But I definitely would not make a law to accomplish that. Either way I think accountability by the power company needs to go up. Also I am sorry the woman died. Other than that I am completely unsure!

Thanks

Several things trouble me about this story. First, the bill went unpaid for at least two months. Several late notices and shut off notices were sent out and ignored. The woman didn't have a backup battery even tho most equipment of this type has this in the event of a power outage. Neither she nor any caregivers kept her records up to date with the power company. To me this sounds like a potential suicide or negligent homicide. She and/or her husband KNEW they didn't pay the pill and had to KNOW the power would be shut off and that it would result in her loss of oxygen and lead to death…yet NOTHING was done: the bill wasn't paid: why not borrow? She was supposedly well liked and popular, someone would have loaned her the money, payment arrangements weren't made, phone calls begging to keep the power on as a result of her medical needs were not made, she wasn't moved to another home of a friend, family member, etc., again, she was popular and well liked, someone would have put her up. Why was NOTHING done to either pay the bill, notify the company, or get her to a different location until the bill could be paid? Why?