I once heard a radio program that changed the way I think about fire and government control. The program emphasized how central fire has been to human survival and how, over time, society has regulated it to the point of alienation. The program explored how we offload very basic functions to authority in exchange for other benefits. In turn the authority is interested in control of these basic functions. For example, historically, entire cities were built from wood, leading to devastating fires. In response, governments began instilling fear around fire to promote caution: we created cartoon bears warning children not to play with matches and imposed strict fire regulations.
As a result, people became increasingly disconnected from fire. Kids raised on fire-safety propaganda grew up being told they couldn’t burn things on their own property or light a fire without permission, especially in cities. Eventually, the knowledge and instinct to responsibly manage fire faded. Fire became something only officials could control. Today, people panic at the mere smell of smoke, not because of immediate danger, but because we’ve been conditioned to view any fire as a threat.
The deeper point the program made was about dependence on authority. When we outsource essential survival skills, like fire management or justice to the government, we assume it will handle those responsibilities competently. But what happens when it doesn’t? For example, Native cultures used controlled burns to prevent wildfires by clearing dry brush. When governments prohibit such practices and also fail to manage the land properly, fuel builds up and massive fires become inevitable.
This raises a fundamental ethical question: If the government refuses to fulfill its basic responsibilities, do citizens have the right, or even the duty, to reclaim control over essential survival functions?
How long until Republican groups convince you all that Tom and Bruce are fascist or something. No true leftist. I’m giving it 30 days