For-pay fire department lets man's house burn

[El Minion]

For-pay fire department lets man's house burn (http://www.salon.com/news/libertarianism/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/10/04/libertarian_fire_department)
By Alex Pareene

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/04/libertarian_fire_department/md_horiz.jpg
Friedrich Hayek

There is a sort of childish taunt that liberals use against proper libertarians sometimes, in which they humorously propose that the fire department be privatized, because the "invisible hand" of the market would be more efficient at putting out house fires. And then everyone has a laugh -- the liberals because think they just scored a really great rhetorical point, and the libertarians because they are high.

Meanwhile, out in Tennessee, a man's house burned down because he didn't pay the fire department (http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html).
The homeowner, Gene Cranick, said he offered to pay whatever it would take for firefighters to put out the flames, but was told it was too late. They wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning.

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond.

Turns out, the neighbor had paid the fee.
[...]
It was only when a neighbor's field caught fire, a neighbor who had paid the county fire service fee, that the department responded. Gene Cranick asked the fire chief to make an exception and save his home, the chief wouldn't.So some self-interested rational actor decided not to pay for fire protection -- an optional service -- and then his house burned down, because the firefighters obviously didn't want to open the fire-fighting program up to a bunch of free riders.

Daniel Foster, The Corner's resident hip libertarian-leaning conservative, is rightly appalled by this entire story (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248649/pay-spray-firefighters-watch-home-burns-daniel-foster). He has no problem with opt-in government, of course! it's just that he has this crazy notion that the firefighters had a moral responsibility to stop a man's house from burning down, especially after they responded to his neighbor. And, come on, the guy offered to pay! So no moral hazard!

A-ha, a reader responds. He "offered." But he is clearly a deadbeat, and a leech on society, and the firefighters were right to watch as everything he owned became ash.
UPDATE: A reader writes:

Yes, he offered to pay, while his house burned. I can’t prove what would have happened, but the FD would probably have had to sue him to gain full reimbursement. Maybe they need to start carrying pre-printed contracts for the homeowners to sign quickly and obligate themselves for the full cost plus a little profit.
A man whose house is on fire will say anything to a guy with the means to put the fire out -- best not to trust him, unless you can get it in writing.

I sometimes feel bad for smart, principled conservative bloggers, because the only people worse than their peers (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248665/re-pay-spray-jonah-goldberg) are their readers.

* Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon. Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene More Alex Pareene

[W*GS]

Ayn Rand would be proud.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's right-wing utopia!

[Rohirrim]

And so goes ideology over common sense.

[Garcia Bronco]

I feel bad that he lost his house, but he has no one to blame but himself. It's a special brand of arrogance to blame others for not putting out a fire you probably started yourself; while you didn't pay the fee for the service to put out the fire. Hopefully he learned his lesson. This could be the best thing that ever happened to him.

[Pony Boy]

Put the fire out and charge him the total cost of the labor and equipment to do so. If he refuses to pay, put a lien on the house or attach his wages. If he is a renter or unemployed give him community services hours to cover the bill.

[Spider]

bull**** . this is why we pay taxes ........if this firedept wants people to pay , then give them a tax voucher ..... you pay 75 a year , get 75 dollars credit to your taxes ......

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Put the fire out and charge him the total cost of the labor and equipment to do so. If he refuses to pay, put a lien on the house or attach his wages. If he is a renter or unemployed give him community services hours to cover the bill.

Or, you could put him in uniform, ship him off to Afghanistan, and let him work off his debt that way. :mullet2: :crazy:

[Pony Boy]

bull**** . this is why we pay taxes ........if this firedept wants people to pay , then give them a tax voucher ..... you pay 75 a year , get 75 dollars credit to your taxes ......

I live in a rual area with a volunteer fire department, all firemen are community volunteers....... no tax money goes to the fire department only membership fees and donations. You city boys wouldn't understand that concept. ;)

[Pony Boy]

Or, you could put him in uniform, ship him off to Afghanistan, and let him work off his debt that way. :mullet2: :crazy:

Gheeze.... go lay down and let your pups suck...... WTF does Afghanistan have to do with this ......

[That One Guy]

If this is how they choose to run their government, who is to blame? Surely if it was $75 to opt into the service or $75 to join the service once you need it, only those who experienced fires would join.

Not sure I agree with the concept or not but if he turned down fire service to save his money, that's his free will and choice at work.

[Spider]

I live in a rual area with a volunteer fire department, all firemen are community volunteers....... no tax money goes to the fire department only membership fees and donations. You city boys wouldn't understand that concept. ;)

;D I lived 20 miles from black top ......As for no tax ? May wanna check into that ....... Property tax and a couple others taxes are for county depts ..... I know Ambulances take alot of money specially for the uninsured

[Garcia Bronco]

I live in a rual area with a volunteer fire department, all firemen are community volunteers....... no tax money goes to the fire department only membership fees and donations. You city boys wouldn't understand that concept. ;)

This guy supposedly lives in rural area, too. The more I think about this...the more it blows me away. He lost his house, home, and stuff for 75 bucks, Ouch!

[That One Guy]

This guy supposedly lives in rural area, too. The more I think about this...the more it blows me away. He lost his house, home, and stuff for 75 bucks, Ouch!

Just to clarify, are you saying they should've foregone policy or that he should've paid?

[That One Guy]

By the way, it's awful nice to see that the homeowner said it wasn't the firefighter's fault as they were doing as they were told yet someone assaulted one of the firefighters after the incident occured.

Shows you where we are as a society. Don't like the policy? Assault the lowest guy on the totem pole.

[Pony Boy]

This guy supposedly lives in rural area, too. The more I think about this...the more it blows me away. He lost his house, home, and stuff for 75 bucks, Ouch!

We have a policy not to let a house burn even if it's vacent. I know you can't get a mortgage here unless a fire department membership is attached.

[Garcia Bronco]

Just to clarify, are you saying they should've foregone policy or that he should've paid?

I would have paid. Supposedly this guy lives outside the city and relies on the city fire department to put out a fire. What a moron. He doesn't live in the city. The city folk pay for in their taxes.

[Garcia Bronco]

We have a policy not to let a house burn even if it's vacent. I know you can't get a mortgage here unless a fire department membership is attached.

I would think if he had a note on his house the bank would pay, take a small fee, and pay it themselves. I would. He might own it outright.

[Garcia Bronco]

I would also think a bunch of deliquent accounts got paid today. I could be wrong. It could be tomorrow.

[chadta]

how is that any different than somebody choosing to drive without car insurance, and crying when you smash and have to pay cash for somebodys damaged car ?

hes got nobody to blame but himself

[That One Guy]

how is that any different than somebody choosing to drive without car insurance, and crying when you smash and have to pay cash for somebodys damaged car ?

hes got nobody to blame but himself

You've gotta be one of my favorite Canadian posters.

[spdirty]

Hope he at least has some fire insurance.

[That One Guy]

Hope he at least has some fire insurance.

LOL What a jumbled mess THAT would make.

[Garcia Bronco]

His policy might not cover it because it might say he has to carry it to have coverage.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Gheeze.... go lay down and let your pups suck...... WTF does Afghanistan have to do with this ......

Suck this.

You were recommending ways this guy could pay for the services of a privatized fire department. Given the right-wing whack job you are, I'm just surprised you didn't recommend military service or debtor's prison.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And so goes ideology over common sense.

Exactly.

Reminds me of those right-wing extremist whack jobs in cities like Colorado Springs who are so anti-government that they're voting to do away with basic services, e.g., public transportation, park maintenance, etc.

Talk about loony tunes! :crazy: :mullet1:

[Missouribronc]

My city provides my electricity. When I don t pay my bill, they don't provide the service.

What a novel idea. Arguing against that is borderline insane.

[Garcia Bronco]

Obviously where he is doesn't require a full time fire department. So they contract with the city fire department to cover them for 75 dollars. He lost his **** for 75 dollars.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^ Next thing you know, the far right will be arguing to privatize their local law enforcement agencies.

"Thank you for calling 911, sir. I understand you're being robbed/raped/murdered. I'll be glad to send someone to your location. First, I'll just need to get your VISA number with the expiration date..."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

My city provides my electricity. When I don t pay my bill, they don't provide the service.

What a novel idea. Arguing against that is borderline insane.

Electric company = fire department?

Now there's an equation only a "borderline insane" right-winger could come up with. Ha!

[Pony Boy]

Suck this.

You were recommending ways this guy could pay for the services of a privatized fire department. Given the right-wing whack job you are, I'm just surprised you didn't recommend military service or debtor's prison.

Oh, I forgot you left wing loons think serving in the armed forces is the same as a prison sentence..... FYI most Americans consider it an honor and a privilege to serve in Afghanistan.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

..... FYI most Americans consider it an honor and a privilege to serve in Afghanistan.

Well, there are exceptions to every rule, I guess...

http://www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/archives/bingo425px.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oh, I forgot you left wing loons think serving in the armed forces is the same as a prison sentence.....

I'm a veteran, and I volunteered, dumb f_ck.

[Pony Boy]

I'm a veteran, and I volunteered, dumb f_ck.

So I guess don't ask don't tell worked for you...... now go back to your coffee house and beat your bongos or play your skin flute or what ever it is you do to avoid paying taxes.....

[TDmvp]

Just watched the guy who's house burnt on Queef Olbermann and that was hard to watch.

I'm a animal person (sue me) and they lost everything they owned and their pets which is so sad but in the interview he actually says he just forgot to pay it which I'm not sure how I feel about.

Yes they should have came when he needed help and billed the $hit out of him for it and did the lien thing someone mentioned , human life and decency trumps 75$ and protocol but still where do we draw the line on this type of stuff ...

I guess it's a case to case thing because I know If i forgot to pay my car insurance they wouldn't cover me if a crashed ,and if I didn't pay the monthly on my life insurance they wouldn't pay out if i croaked LOL...


I mean he actually says in the interview it's his own fault because he forgot.

Sad no matter how you look at it tho.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So I guess don't ask don't tell worked for you...... now go back to your coffee house and beat your bongos or play your skin flute or what ever it is you do to avoid paying taxes.....

When out of ammo, use homophobic slur and declare victory.

You right-wingnuts are all too predictable. :mullet1:

[chadta]

he actually says he just forgot to pay it which I'm not sure how I feel about.

Yes they should have came when he needed help and billed the $hit out of him for it and did the lien thing someone mentioned , human life and decency trumps 75$ and protocol but still where do we draw the line on this type of stuff ...

seems this confusion could have been solved with a simple waiver, you want to opt out you sign here please, and dont come crying to us when **** happens. If he did truely forget this is sad, but i would hope that they dont just cancel it when the cheque isnt present by closing time on the 24th.

I know my car insurance sends out a reminder letter, and then once the date passes they send you something registered mail saying that the policy is canceled, so you are well aware of the situation that you brought on yourself.

at least this guy only sort of blames everybody else, unlike most left wing wack jobs, who can blame anything and everything on the way the grade 2 teacher looked at them on that one rainy day in december of 1972. When will people take responsibilities for the actions that they take ?

[Rohirrim]

No big deal. The guy's insurance is going to cover it.

Of course, the rates of his neighbors, oh, and of the idiot brigade they call a fire department will go up too. Ha!

Chip in and buy the guy a new house, dumb ****ing rightards. :rofl:

[bronclvr]

Leave it O'Maners to take a tragedy (of his own making) and turn it into a Political slug-fest-too much-

[Garcia Bronco]

I still can't believe this guy didn't pay them and forgot. There are certain bills you can't forgot.

[chadta]

No big deal. The guy's insurance is going to cover it.:

i dunno about that, lets go back to the car insurance take, if you crash and are drunk you are uninsured, at least thats how it is up here in canada.



Chip in and buy the guy a new house, dumb ****ing rightards. :rofl:

what the hell new houses for everybody

[Mr.Meanie]

What does everyone think about privatizing the police department? Opt in if you want 911 to answer your calls!

[sirhcyennek81]

I live in a rual area with a volunteer fire department, all firemen are community volunteers....... no tax money goes to the fire department only membership fees and donations. You city boys wouldn't understand that concept. ;)


Same way out here. Volunteer FD. These guys also volunteer when you hear about those giant grass/wood fires in the mtns.

As for the dude who had his house burn down...next time pay the fee.


:Broncos:

[cutthemdown]

Anyone who doesn't pay a measly 75 bucks for fire protection is an idiot. This isn't a sign that privatizing a fire dept doesn't work. It shows it does work. You pay for protection you get fire put out. You don't pay for protection your house burns. Can it be any more black and white then that?

I bet people in that town who didn't pay the fire fee will now huh? Either that or you better have a water supply, a powerful pump, and a big hose to do it yourself.

[cutthemdown]

What does everyone think about privatizing the police department? Opt in if you want 911 to answer your calls!

In my city police budget is the number one cost. If it would reduce my local tax I would go for it. I have never once needed the cops and doubt I ever will.

I can take care of myself.

Now fire, Paramedics etc etc I would never want to do without. You might have a medical emergency.

Police though do nothing for me and never have. They are never around when you need them, and when they are around they treat you like dirt. I have a shotgun and 2 handguns ready to go. I don't need the po po.

[Pony Boy]

In my city police budget is the number one cost. If it would reduce my local tax I would go for it. I have never once needed the cops and doubt I ever will.

I can take care of myself.

Now fire, Paramedics etc etc I would never want to do without. You might have a medical emergency.

Police though do nothing for me and never have. They are never around when you need them, and when they are around they treat you like dirt. I have a shotgun and 2 handguns ready to go. I don't need the po po.

This is why there are so many private gated retirement communities in the south with private security guards.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I have never once needed the cops and doubt I ever will.

I can take care of myself.



And screw anyone who can't, right? :oyvey:

[chadta]

if you opt out of police protection do you still get speeding tickets ?

[sirhcyennek81]

And screw anyone who can't, right? :oyvey:


Going to go out on a limb here...

If the dude can afford a house and feed four animals as well as himself and his family; then maybe he can not have 4 animals and scrape together the $75 to pay the fire department. Home owner/rental failure here.

As the article mentioned, the neighbor got their house protected...because they paid the fee. Maybe Obambi should appoint a home protection from fire Czar to look into this "travesty".

:Broncos:

[Fedaykin]

"This fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property, that anyone would respond."

This is a perfect example of why "selective" critical public services are idiotic. This fire brigade didn't do their job so not only did the person who didn't pay the fee have fire problems, but those problems spread to others' property.

If I'm the neighbor, I sue the **** out of the fire department.

[Garcia Bronco]

This is a perfect example of why "selective" critical public services are idiotic. This fire brigade didn't do their job so not only did the person who didn't pay the fee have fire problems, but those problems spread to others' property.

If I'm the neighbor, I sue the **** out of the fire department.

That City FDP is under no obligation to cover that guys house. You'd lose. He had no contract with them. Sounds like that community needs a vol FDP, or pay for one, but they'll spend more than 75 beans a year.

Like I said; it a special brand of arrogance to blame the FDP for not putting out a fire you started when you didn't have a contract with them to do so.

[Bronco Yoda]

Bad idea to have a pay-for-service fire department. So many reasons. So many things can and will get out of hand with this type of setup.

I worked hot shot crew in summers durring college and did some Volunteer service when I was younger. You DO NOT want to play games with fire!

[Fedaykin]

That City FDP is under no obligation to cover that guys house. You'd lose. He had no contract with them. Sounds like that community needs a vol FDP, or pay for one, but they'll spend more than 75 beans a year.

Like I said; it a special brand of arrogance to blame the FDP for not putting out a fire you started when you didn't have a contract with them to do so.

As usual, you need some work on your reading comprehension.

Try again.

[Garcia Bronco]

As usual, you need some work on your reading comprehension.

Try again.

A special brand of arrogance.

[Fedaykin]

A special brand of arrogance.

Expecting basic reading comprehension is 'arrogant'?

Hilarious!

[That One Guy]

This is a perfect example of why "selective" critical public services are idiotic. This fire brigade didn't do their job so not only did the person who didn't pay the fee have fire problems, but those problems spread to others' property.

If I'm the neighbor, I sue the **** out of the fire department.

This isn't selective anything. This is a case where the Fire Department said "Sorry, you're on your own out there. Our boundaries don't extend that far. However, if you'd like to pay into a fund, anyone that contributes $75 will pay the necessary cost for us to go outside our boundaries" in other words.

So, in essence, that fire department was no more responsible for putting out that fire than FDNY was. It was outside the coverages for both. The fact that the fire department was willing to extend their coverage but he opted out is insignificant. If the fire department simply said "we don't cover out there, get your own fire department" then the only difference is the neighbor's house would've burned as well.

[That One Guy]

Bad idea to have a pay-for-service fire department. So many reasons. So many things can and will get out of hand with this type of setup.

I worked hot shot crew in summers durring college and did some Volunteer service when I was younger. You DO NOT want to play games with fire!

You're missing the point. This fire department didn't serve that area and the taxes from those individuals weren't supporting the fire department. You live outside the city, you can face these issues. It's the downside to not paying the same taxes as city folk.

It was a nice gesture to offer to cover the people but unfunded nice gestures just don't work in the real world.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Going to go out on a limb here...

If the dude can afford a house and feed four animals as well as himself and his family; then maybe he can not have 4 animals and scrape together the $75 to pay the fire department. Home owner/rental failure here.

As the article mentioned, the neighbor got their house protected...because they paid the fee. Maybe Obambi should appoint a home protection from fire Czar to look into this "travesty".

:Broncos:

Wow - comprehension trouble?

My question was "what about everyone else, i.e., those who can't afford private firefighting services?"

The answer from right-wing sociopaths always seems to boil down to "screw 'em - let 'em burn" (or starve or die in the streets, as the case may be.)

Hence, cutthemdown's only thought on the matter was "I probably won't ever need x, y, and z" (so screw everybody else.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It was a nice gesture to offer to cover the people but unfunded nice gestures just don't work in the real world.

Really?

Then so much for the republican "solution" to the health care crisis. Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.buzzflash.com/classic/files/buzzphoto.jpg Republicans Let Houses Burn Down, For Real!
(https://members.truth-out.org/donate)

[That One Guy]

Wow - comprehension trouble?

My question was "what about everyone else, i.e., those who can't afford private firefighting services?"

The answer from right-wing sociopaths always seems to boil down to "screw 'em - let 'em burn" (or starve or die in the streets, as the case may be.)

Hence, cutthemdown's only thought on the matter was "I probably won't ever need x, y, and z" (so screw everybody else.)

Lame argument. It's 6 bucks a month to ensure you have fire assistance. If you can't afford that, you can't afford to live in the home you're living in.

People in cities don't get the option to not pay taxes because they're too expensive. Neither should this guy. It's a personal responsibility failure.

[That One Guy]

Really?

Then so much for the republican "solution" to the health care crisis. Ha!

Not sure exactly what you're getting at but you wont hear me argue for such a concept.

I say folks are over-indulging in health care and a lot more should die. How others feel is beyond my realm of input.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lame argument. It's 6 bucks a month to ensure you have fire assistance. If you can't afford that, you can't afford to live in the home you're living in.


It (the story in the OP) says $75 per year - there's no mention of a monthly payment plan, etc.

I know it probably comes as a shock to "save the billionaires" types like you, but there are people out there who can't afford to pay, e.g., seniors on fixed incomes, people living below the poverty line, etc.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I say folks are over-indulging in health care and a lot more should die.

???

[TDmvp]

Not sure exactly what you're getting at but you wont hear me argue for such a concept.

I say folks are over-indulging in health care and a lot more should die. How others feel is beyond my realm of input.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:gBqs63adModp6M:http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/LordNergal_bucket/not-sure-if-serious.jpg&t=1

[That One Guy]

It (the story in the OP) says $75 per year - there's no mention of a monthly payment plan, etc.

I know it probably comes as a shock to "save the billionaires" types like you, but there are people out there who can't afford to pay, e.g., seniors on fixed incomes, people living below the poverty line, etc.

While I'm inclined to throw out a one time $75 payment wouldn't be the hardest thing to do, neither of us could prove anything so there's no point. I was just saying that someone could set aside 6 bucks a month to pay when the bill came due.

I know there's poor folk out there but everyone enjoys the protections of society and they deserve to bear the burden for such. This, again, will devolve into a "How poor is poor" discussion so lets avoid that unless you have any notion to say this guy was just so poor that he couldn't afford the coverage.

The fact that he offered to pay whatever it took to put out the fire tells me otherwise.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This, again, will devolve into a "How poor is poor" discussion so lets avoid that...

I can see why you would want to avoid that discussion at all costs.

That's almost as uncomfortable as "how rich is rich?" Ha!

[That One Guy]

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:gBqs63adModp6M:http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt352/LordNergal_bucket/not-sure-if-serious.jpg&t=1

Haha...

Yeah, serious. There's so many new issues being discovered these days that if we continue to get prescribed new meds for every little ailment that doctors discover, we'll all go broke. What was once just pains associated with growing old are now treated (unsuccessfully, quite often) with a half dozen different pills. Rather than folks losing weight or dying, they stay fat and take a half dozen different pills to treat the issues being fat brings on. Etc.

And as for dying, we continue to try to extend everyone's lifetime to infinity. My great-granny is 97 years old, never leaves her chair, and after a stroke a few years ago has probably no more than about a 5 minute memory. Her long term memory is hit or miss but when my wife and I visit, I'm re-introducing them about every 5-10 minutes. Meanwhile, with such a life, she's in the hospital every other month or so and she has not a dime to her name to pay for it. At what point do we end it? When the capability is there to replace failing organs, will we actually indulge in eternal life? Is that responsible to do? With heart research advancing as fast as it is, it's only a matter of time until the only way to die is to have something happen and end up brain dead. What would such a scenario do to the world? This is all hypothetical, of course, but it's just an issue of where to draw the line. For me, it's a lot earlier than 97 with a completely failing body and mind.

[That One Guy]

I can see why you would want to avoid that discussion at all costs.

That's almost as uncomfortable as "how rich is rich?" Ha!

No, just because I don't want to derail this conversation. We've had similar in the past and with most issues, there's no clear cut answer to any questions.

This thread is instead about this guy's personal scenario and some of the first enactments of a libertarian-like concept in modern society. It's interesting in its own merit, why take the thread off for the sake of rehashing an old argument?

[Rohirrim]

Actually, we tried this in America in the 18th century. You can still see some of the old, brick buildings in NY with the "FD" badges on them. These were the ones that paid for fire insurance, so when the fire department showed up, they would know whether or not the building was owned by a paid member. Then, they had this huge fire that burned down NY and they discovered that their system was stupid. Now the Right wants us to learn all these lessons all over again. After all, why read history when you've got ideology? Ha!

[That One Guy]

Actually, we tried this in America in the 18th century. You can still see some of the old, brick buildings in NY with the "FD" badges on them. These were the ones that paid for fire insurance, so when the fire department showed up, they would know whether or not the building was owned by a paid member. Then, they had this huge fire that burned down NY and they discovered that their system was stupid. Now the Right wants us to learn all these lessons all over again. After all, why read history when you've got ideology? Ha!

In the end it's all responsibility. Just as I personally think opting out of police services despite the fact that I never use them seems silly, I think this guy is equally silly for opting out of the coverage.

If this fire department takes too much flak for this, you do realize they're just going to deny coverage to any of the area in the future, right? Their boundaries do not extend to these individuals' homes. The community will now be forced to rely on a volunteer department or find funding for an entire department when they could've just paid the $75 and used their neighbors.

They can also find a way to get included in the boundaries of the fire department but surely they don't want to start paying taxes and fall under the score of laws that didn't pertain to them before.

[Garcia Bronco]

Actually, we tried this in America in the 18th century. You can still see some of the old, brick buildings in NY with the "FD" badges on them. These were the ones that paid for fire insurance, so when the fire department showed up, they would know whether or not the building was owned by a paid member. Then, they had this huge fire that burned down NY and they discovered that their system was stupid. Now the Right wants us to learn all these lessons all over again. After all, why read history when you've got ideology? Ha!

This isn't the same. This isn't a city we are talking about which has a different set of circumstances around it. Again, this is a rural area that does not have the resources to have their own FD. As TOG put, the city FD are no more responsible than the NYFD.

the biggest problem in the 1800's which is the 19th century was that Fire Brigades would compete for business and fight with each other while the house burned down and then the winning fire brigade would loot the house. The movie 'Gangs of New York' illustrates this very well.

[Garcia Bronco]

And as for dying, we continue to try to extend everyone's lifetime to infinity. My great-granny is 97 years old, never leaves her chair, and after a stroke a few years ago has probably no more than about a 5 minute memory. Her long term memory is hit or miss but when my wife and I visit, I'm re-introducing them about every 5-10 minutes. Meanwhile, with such a life, she's in the hospital every other month or so and she has not a dime to her name to pay for it. At what point do we end it? When the capability is there to replace failing organs, will we actually indulge in eternal life? Is that responsible to do? With heart research advancing as fast as it is, it's only a matter of time until the only way to die is to have something happen and end up brain dead. What would such a scenario do to the world? This is all hypothetical, of course, but it's just an issue of where to draw the line. For me, it's a lot earlier than 97 with a completely failing body and mind.


Same thing with my Grandmother. She doesn't know who I am or who see is anymore and has a pacemaker. Asleep or awake it beats at 72 per minute. She's alone across the country in a dementia facility and I am sure I don't want to live that long and all she does is drain resources form the State.

[Spider]

unions specially Teamsters , and the Mob also specialized in Fire protection ...........

[cutthemdown]

As usual, you need some work on your reading comprehension.

Try again.

They came out and I don't think any of the neighbors property burned. What would he sue for?

[cutthemdown]

Just watched the guy who's house burnt on Queef Olbermann and that was hard to watch.

I'm a animal person (sue me) and they lost everything they owned and their pets which is so sad but in the interview he actually says he just forgot to pay it which I'm not sure how I feel about.

Yes they should have came when he needed help and billed the $hit out of him for it and did the lien thing someone mentioned , human life and decency trumps 75$ and protocol but still where do we draw the line on this type of stuff ...

I guess it's a case to case thing because I know If i forgot to pay my car insurance they wouldn't cover me if a crashed ,and if I didn't pay the monthly on my life insurance they wouldn't pay out if i croaked LOL...


I mean he actually says in the interview it's his own fault because he forgot.

Sad no matter how you look at it tho.

He forgot? I heard on radio that he hadn't ever paid it since it was implemented? So he forgot more then once lol.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually, we tried this in America in the 18th century. You can still see some of the old, brick buildings in NY with the "FD" badges on them. These were the ones that paid for fire insurance, so when the fire department showed up, they would know whether or not the building was owned by a paid member. Then, they had this huge fire that burned down NY and they discovered that their system was stupid. Now the Right wants us to learn all these lessons all over again. After all, why read history when you've got ideology? Ha!

Exactly.

You would think that, if nothing else, some of these bozos on this board would have learned from the Reagan con job.

[cutthemdown]

The only thing country learning is that Jimmy Carter 2.0 not good for the country. They are going to jettison him in 2 yrs. But first we are going to strip him of all power for next 2 yrs by crushing them in the midterms.

LABF theory the repubs would need 10 yrs to recover not panning out. Turns out dems are that bad.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The only thing country learning is that Jimmy Carter 2.0 not good for the country.

The only reason we're talking "Jimmy Carter 2.0" is because, like Carter, the current POTUS had to follow another criminal and disastrous republican administration.


They are going to jettison him in 2 yrs. But first we are going to strip him of all power for next 2 yrs by crushing them in the midterms.

"Crushing" them in the midterms? Ha!

Ha ha ha!

The republi-crooks will undoubtedly pick up some seats - thanks (and thanks alone) to voter dissatisfaction over the lingering recession they created, but there's no reason for you to be that confident.


LABF theory the repubs would need 10 yrs to recover not panning out. Turns out dems are that bad.

Actually, that wasn't "my" theory - it was the opinion of the author of the article you're referencing.

If you were paying attention, you'd remember that I predicted even before the election that anyone who had to follow Daddy's Little War Criminal would be screwed insofar as there was no way anyone could even begin to reverse in just one term the historic havoc it took Bush and the GOP eight years to wreak.

[Rohirrim]

The only thing country learning is that Jimmy Carter 2.0 not good for the country. They are going to jettison him in 2 yrs. But first we are going to strip him of all power for next 2 yrs by crushing them in the midterms.

LABF theory the repubs would need 10 yrs to recover not panning out. Turns out dems are that bad.

The Left is losing the propaganda war. That doesn't mean they are losing the "reality" war. It simply means that the Right has a far more powerful propaganda machine. A good metaphor is "Reality" TV. Of course, there is nothing real about it. It's all a sham. But it's the most popular stuff out there. We live in sham times. We get an overload of information, but most of it is worthless. Eventually, the people will realize that the rightard emperor has no clothes (in other words, supply side really is voodoo economics).

The dems have made the fatal mistake of believing that people will act in their own best interests. Well, it depends on who is telling them what their best interests are, and who they believe. Maybe it's the same corporation bringing them their favorite "reality" show? The dems never stand up and make the counter argument. They just continue to assume they are right and keep getting their asses kicked. The dems are gutless. A national debate is happening but they refuse to take the podium and make their argument (read Hartmann's piece to find out why). The dems should hold a meeting where they all just sit around reading TR speeches. Maybe then they'd get their heads out of their asses.

[broncocalijohn]

Stick with the topic guys (unless you dont want to start another thread and have it be considered spamming the board LOL). This happens all the time with volunteer paying. Think of it like this; You do not have to have earthquake insurance but you can buy it separately. If there happens to be an earthquake and destroys your home, do you expect the government to rebuild your home? While it sucks the rules are so strong, the homeowners all know what this means. This is chump change to support your local fire department. Many give more than that for charities from the police and fire department. This is a service to keep the department funded. When you dont pay the $75, you are saying you dont support them in your community. Best way is to have the charges on the property tax and if someone declines to pay it, they have to check it off and sign next to it. It is tough love tactics but lesson learned I hope for the millions that dont have insurance and are playing with fire (literally).

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Left is losing the propaganda war. That doesn't mean they are losing the "reality" war. It simply means that the Right has a far more powerful propaganda machine.

Exactly.

A long list of billionaires and globalists have been pouring money into the creation of that propaganda machine for >30 years.

[broncocalijohn]

Well, there are exceptions to every rule, I guess...

http://www.nyu.edu/classes/siva/archives/bingo425px.gif

Can you make up one of those bingo cards for all the libs that want free health care but wont become a doctor or nurse? Works both ways.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Can you make up one of those bingo cards for all the libs that want free health care but wont become a doctor or nurse? Works both ways.

ROFL!

Right-wing "logic" at its finest.

Yeah - let's just encourage all those "liberals" without health care to become doctors or nurses - that way, they can provide their own health care. :spit:

[broncocalijohn]

ROFL!

Right-wing "logic" at its finest.

Yeah - let's just encourage all those "liberals" without health care to become doctors or nurses - that way, they can provide their own health care. :spit:

I didnt say without health care but wanting free health care. I assume you have health care and you like Obamacare. Soooo, if you support it, why dont you become a doctor or nurse? You are stating that if you back the war in Afghanistan, you should then become a soldier.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I didnt say without health care but wanting free health care.

Either way, your "solution" was comical.


I assume you have health care and you like Obamacare.

You know what they say about assuming...


You are stating that if you back the war in Afghanistan, you should then become a soldier.

You're great at taking things out of context, I see.

My statement re: Afghanistan was a response to another post by some right-wing idiot who claimed, in effect, that liberals shunned military service.

[Bronco Yoda]

You're missing the point. This fire department didn't serve that area and the taxes from those individuals weren't supporting the fire department. You live outside the city, you can face these issues. It's the downside to not paying the same taxes as city folk.

It was a nice gesture to offer to cover the people but unfunded nice gestures just don't work in the real world.



You obviously know more about such things than I. ::) Carry on with your bad self. ::)

[cutthemdown]

Either way, your "solution" was comical.



You know what they say about assuming...



You're great at taking things out of context, I see.

My statement re: Afghanistan was a response to another post by some right-wing idiot who claimed, in effect, that liberals shunned military service.

No you said a bunch of times if you support war and don't sign up to fight you are lame.

His point just illustrates how stupid your points always were.

He owned you.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No you said a bunch of times if you support war and don't sign up to fight you are lame.

His point just illustrates how stupid your points always were.

He owned you.

Your lack of reading comprehension "owns" you on a regular basis.

My post was a direct response to some other right-wing handjob's claim that liberals shunned military service.

But you're correct in pointing out that I maintained that cheerleaders for Bush's wars who were able but unwilling to help fight them were hypocrites.

[Garcia Bronco]

I still can't believe this guy lost all his **** for 75 bucks.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Can't believe anyone would be so amoral as to let a man's house burn down over 75 bucks.

[chadta]

Can't believe anyone would be so amoral as to let a man's house burn down over 75 bucks.

cant believe anyone would feel so entitled to think that they didn't have to pay the 75 bucks and people would just cover them anyhow.

choices have consequences, he decided not to pay, and his house burnt down see how that works ?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

cant believe anyone would feel so entitled to think that they didn't have to pay the 75 bucks and people would just cover them anyhow.

choices have consequences, he decided not to pay, and his house burnt down see how that works ?

You are probably one of those people who are just fine with the idea of people who can't afford health care just being left to die in the streets as well.

Right-wingers are people who are missing some sort of social conscience gene.

[Pony Boy]

I live in a rural area with a volunteer fire department and member owned rural water system. Guess what if I don't pay my rural water membership and pay my monthly bill they will cut my water off........imagine that. We will have a Halloween carnival and the annual fill the fireman boot with donations. I will stop by and have a 75.00 piece of pie..... We get zero county, state or Federal funding so if you want protection you pay up.

[Missouribronc]

I live in a rural area with a volunteer fire department and member owned rural water system. Guess what if I don't pay my rural water membership and pay my monthly bill they will cut my water off........imagine that. We will have a Halloween carnival and the annual fill the fireman boot with donations. I will stop by and have a 75.00 piece of pie..... We get zero county, state or Federal funding so if you want protection you pay up.

It's a novel idea, isn't it?

[Garcia Bronco]

cant believe anyone would feel so entitled to think that they didn't have to pay the 75 bucks and people would just cover them anyhow.

choices have consequences, he decided not to pay, and his house burnt down see how that works ?

If I were there I would not let the guys house burn down. If they said I would lose my job if I did I would have a hard time working there. Having said all that I believe in personal responsibility and this guy has no one to blame but himself.

[Garcia Bronco]

You are probably one of those people who is just fine with the idea of people who can't afford health care just being left to die in the streets as well.

Right-wingers are people who are missing some sort of social conscience gene.


I don't think anyone is okay with that. However, no matter what we do that's going to happen. You have this mixed up idea of what is possible and what isn't. I have seen and read it for over a decade. But that's health care. This has to do with rural homeonwe not paying his bills and you expecting that he should still get the service. Even the homeowner realizes that he screwed up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I live in a rural area...

Now there's a shocker! Ha!


....if you want protection you pay up.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2007/05/23/sopranos460.jpg

[chadta]

You are probably one of those people who are just fine with the idea of people who can't afford health care just being left to die in the streets as well.

Right-wingers are people who are missing some sort of social conscience gene.

not at all, ill get the crayons out for you, this guy Chose to not pay his bill, and then is outraged that he didnt get the service, where else can we use your twisted logic.

you go in for an oil change, dont pay your bill, but insist that the oil change is done anyhow ?

you go to a fast food place, order, dont pay, and expect them to give you the food anyhow ?

it has nothing to do with being right wing or left wing, personally i think yer all nuts, it has to do with people always looking to blame others fr every little thing that happens, when do we as society take responsibility for our own actions, we all watched road runner cartoons, but most of us managed to grow up without hitting anybody with a frying pan, yet somehow todays kids are excused from any personal responsibility because of the tv shows they watched, and the crappy parents are excused because they had to work 2 jobs to make ends meet.

my wife teaches kindergarten, she has a little demon seed kid who torments the other kids, 2 weeks into class and she had already talked to the parent three times, the reply, well i was in a bad car accident with a train 12 years ago. yeah SO what the hell does that have to do with the fact that your little bastard of a kid comes to school and thinks its ok to hit other kids ? you know someday that kid wont be the big one, and hes gonna get his ass kicked, and the mom will be in blaming the school for him getting beat up, and its all because of liberal its ok everybody loves you bull**** policys, no its not ok. when little johnny can behave like a normal person than he can comeback to class, until then you figure out what to do with him.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

not at all, ill get the crayons out for you, this guy Chose to not pay his bill, and then is outraged that he didnt get the service, where else can we use your twisted logic.


So the penalty for not paying your bill should be death?

And you're accusing me of using "twisted logic?" Ha!

Hell, even some of your fellow righties had enough smarts to recommend putting the fire out and THEN going after the guy's money.

It's people like you who create the impression that conservatives are sociopaths.

[Missouribronc]

So the penalty for not paying your bill should be death?

And you're accusing me of using "twisted logic?" Ha!

Who died?

[chadta]

the storys better if somebody dies, give him time hell make something up

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Who died?

Fortunately, no one - this time.

But does this mean you're going to backpedal now and stipulate that it's OK to save someone who is trapped inside a burning building if he hasn't paid the $75?

Let's see if you're consistent.

[Missouribronc]

Fortunately, no one - this time.

But does this mean you're going to backpedal now and stipulate that it's OK to save someone who is trapped inside a burning building if he hasn't paid the $75?

Let's see if you're consistent.

Two different situations. Life is different than property.

[mhgaffney]

When water is privatized -- they will let you die of thirst.

You think it can't happen? It already did -- in S America -- and sparked a popular revolution.

When they do the air -- you'll have to pay just to breathe.

[Taco John]

I don't have a problem with this story. Firemen have to eat too.

[Taco John]

And so goes ideology over common sense.

Common sense says that you should pay for fire service. The firemen aren't at fault in this story at all. They had no obligation to put out this deadbeat's house any more than Pizza Hut has the obligation to deliver free pizzas to starving people.

Why should the firemen risk their lives for someone not willing to participate in the system. The owner opted out. He made a poor risk assessment, and it's not up to the fire department to be on the hook for that poor assessment.

[Taco John]

Put the fire out and charge him the total cost of the labor and equipment to do so. If he refuses to pay, put a lien on the house or attach his wages. If he is a renter or unemployed give him community services hours to cover the bill.


That's a lot of money and effort out the door trying to collect from a known deadbeat.

[Missouribronc]

I don't have a problem with this story. Firemen have to eat too.

That's a myth.

:yayaya:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Two different situations. Life is different than property.

So it's OK in your book to go ahead and save a man's life even if he forgot to pay the $75?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's a lot of money and effort out the door trying to collect from a known deadbeat.

So what is your policy if the resident of the house is, say, a 90 year-old lady who is bed-ridden, inside the house when the fire breaks out, and either forgot to pay the 75 bucks or didn't have it to begin with?

[Taco John]

Actually, we tried this in America in the 18th century. You can still see some of the old, brick buildings in NY with the "FD" badges on them. These were the ones that paid for fire insurance, so when the fire department showed up, they would know whether or not the building was owned by a paid member. Then, they had this huge fire that burned down NY and they discovered that their system was stupid. Now the Right wants us to learn all these lessons all over again. After all, why read history when you've got ideology? Ha!


I don't see this as a matter of ideology at all. I see it as a matter of practicality. If I'm a fire chief, I don't want to put the men in my charge under any undo risk. They're putting their lives on the line when they're going out there and battling fires every single time. And they're doing it for either no or little pay. Further, the community at large needs fire protection. In order to have equipment, money is a necessity. Finally, rural areas are the most expensive fires to fight because of the added equipment needed to combat it. There is no infrastructure out there. It's everything you can bring, including water trucks.

If every rural property decided to skirt on fire protection until their house was on fire, then there would be no money to feed the firemen, nor purchase the equipment. Thus there would be no fire service. This is a clear cut case of the need of the many outweighing the need of the few. I don't see this as an ideological matter so much as it is a practical one. Fire service costs money, and precedent is a bitch. The fire chief cannot let precedent creep in that say "go ahead and skirt paying for service, and just pay if you need it." If he did that, then there would be absolutely no service for rural dwellers in the long term.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Fire service costs money, and precedent is a b****.

No one disputes that - just your idea of how the services should be paid for.

[cutthemdown]

So it's OK in your book to go ahead and save a man's life even if he forgot to pay the $75?

For sure if the guy was burning I would expect any American, fireman or not, to help if he could. No question about it.

[Taco John]

So what is your policy if the resident of the house is, say, a 90 year-old lady who is bed-ridden, inside the house when the fire breaks out, and either forgot to pay the 75 bucks or didn't have it to begin with?


Let her burn.

Is that what you're looking for?

Seriously though, don't be such a moron. Of course if there is a life at stake, you should do what you can to save it. Even if the firechief told someone to stand down, I doubt a single one of them would sit idly by if they knew that there was something that they could do to save a life. Let's not be completely ridiculous here in order to make a strawman ideological point.

[cutthemdown]

I don't have a problem with local govt taxing, to create police and fire depts.

[cutthemdown]

I also don't have a problem if a community wants to make a private fire dept. Or if someone wanted to make a private for profit on in an area that didn't have good service.

[Taco John]

I don't have a problem with local govt taxing, to create police and fire depts.

Yeah, neither do I.

Nor do I have problem with a local govt forgoing a firedepartment and a market solution taking its place. Whatever locals decide to do with regards to their fire protection is up to them.

For my part, if given the option, I'd vote in favor of local government handling the service and taxing me for it. But if they decided to pass the buck to the market, I sure wouldn't try to skip paying it.

[cutthemdown]

My problem is with high federal intervention in my life. I do believe local areas and states should be able to make there own rules. So if you want to live in a high tax state, that provides service, if thats how that state chooses to be, then I have no problem with that either.

[Taco John]

No one disputes that - just your idea of how the services should be paid for.


My idea for how services should be paid for? You mean property taxes?

[cutthemdown]

Yeah, neither do I.

Nor do I have problem with a local govt forgoing a firedepartment and a market solution taking its place. Whatever locals decide to do with regards to their fire protection is up to them.

For my part, if given the option, I'd vote in favor of local government handling the service and taxing me for it. But if they decided to pass the buck to the market, I sure wouldn't try to skip paying it.


I could see how in some areas forgoing a public fire dept, and having a private one could be better. But in general I agree tax at the state, local level, to pay for fire and police.

[cutthemdown]

TACO it is so simple it's a joke. Tax i spend should be spent in my area. People bag on big states like Calif, NY, TX, but really our tax money leaves our state and goes to poorer states in great numbers.

[Pony Boy]

Common sense says that you should pay for fire service. The firemen aren't at fault in this story at all. They had no obligation to put out this deadbeat's house any more than Pizza Hut has the obligation to deliver free pizzas to starving people.
Why should the firemen risk their lives for someone not willing to participate in the system. The owner opted out. He made a poor risk assessment, and it's not up to the fire department to be on the hook for that poor assessment.

Ha..... great, I think I might have to steal that line and use it again....

[Taco John]

My problem is with high federal intervention in my life. I do believe local areas and states should be able to make there own rules. So if you want to live in a high tax state, that provides service, if thats how that state chooses to be, then I have no problem with that either.


We pretty well see eye to eye. I'm in favor of localized and preferably optional socialism. For instance, a church. Or a neighborhood organization. Localized socialism can be a great thing. My problem is when it becomes federalized, or when it becomes forced. I'd rather see competing organizations, than forced ones that are allowed to get complacent because of the use of force to make everybody participate whether they want to or not.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

My idea for how services should be paid for? You mean property taxes?

Did you read the OP?

We're talking about a private, for-pay fire department.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Let her burn.

Is that what you're looking for?

Seriously though, don't be such a moron. Of course if there is a life at stake, you should do what you can to save it. Even if the firechief told someone to stand down, I doubt a single one of them would sit idly by if they knew that there was something that they could do to save a life. Let's not be completely ridiculous here in order to make a strawman ideological point.

Whew!

I wasn't sure - just checking to see if there's still a pulse (social conscience.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Common sense says that you should pay for fire service. The firemen aren't at fault in this story at all. They had no obligation to put out this deadbeat's house any more than Pizza Hut has the obligation to deliver free pizzas to starving people.

That's a pretty good summation of the reason why right-wingers want to privatize everything.

That way, they wont have to feel bad when people starve to death.

[bronclvr]

Did you read the OP?

We're talking about a private, for-pay fire department.

I don't think so, I believe the city of South Fulton has a Tax base for it's Fire Protection-

[Pony Boy]

I could see how in some areas forgoing a public fire dept, and having a private one could be better. But in general I agree tax at the state, local level, to pay for fire and police.

It's not a case of getting better service and going private but in most rural areas there is no fire protection and the government is under no obligation to provide it. So a volunteer fire department is formed by the community to protect the citizens. Fees and donations are used to cover expenses and in most you do have the choice to opt out. The same goes with rural water districts, you can pay a fee for water or dig a well and none of these are for profit most just squeak by. John Doe that runs the local convince store might have to shut the doors to go fight a fire for one of his neighbors.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I don't think so, I believe the city of South Fulton has a Tax base for it's Fire Protection-

Where in the OP does it say that?

[Taco John]

Did you read the OP?

We're talking about a private, for-pay fire department.

Yes, I've looked into the story (not just read the original post) The fire department is actually supported by city taxes. They offer services to those outside the fire district for a yearly fee. They have no legal obligation to leave their local district, but care enough about their rural neighbors to offer the service at a small stipend to help pay for the equipment needed to service them.

[bronclvr]

Yes, I've looked into the story (not just read the original post) The fire department is actually supported by city taxes. They offer services to those outside the fire district for a yearly fee. They have no legal obligation to leave their local district, but care enough about their rural neighbors to offer the service at a small stipend to help pay for the equipment needed to service them.

Thank you-

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I don't think so, I believe the city of South Fulton has a Tax base for it's Fire Protection-

If so, then I hope it's a progressive tax.

It costs more to protect some fat cat's 8,000 square foot McMansion than some poor bastard's double wide.

[Taco John]

Where in the OP does it say that?


It looks like you're just doing an ideological knee jerk without having bothered to examine the details.

From the original story (not the biased blog post):

Each year, Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the city of South Fulton. But the Cranicks did not pay.

The mayor said if homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck.

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighters-watch-as-home-burns-to-the-ground-104052668.html

[cutthemdown]

If so, then I hope it's a progressive tax.

It costs more to protect some fat cat's 8,000 square foot McMansion than some poor bastard's double wide.

Yeah but the bigger the more property tax you pay already right?

[bronclvr]

If so, then I hope it's a progressive tax.

It costs more to protect some fat cat's 8,000 square foot McMansion than some poor bastard's double wide.

OMG-don't you suppose they pay differing amounts of Taxes? It's generally based on the value of the Property (at least in every State I've llved and every House/Rental I've owned it's been that way)-

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yes, I've looked into the story (not just read the original post) The fire department is actually supported by city taxes. They offer services to those outside the fire district for a yearly fee. They have no legal obligation to leave their local district, but care enough about their rural neighbors to offer the service at a small stipend to help pay for the equipment needed to service them.

OK, but I don't see how this changes the discussion about a decision to let a house burn down because the owner didn't pay his $75.00

[cutthemdown]

I'd have no problem though with fire tax being seperate and based on size of house, whether you have sprinklers etc etc.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah but the bigger the more property tax you pay already right?

Still doesn't justify a flat rate for fire protective services.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'd have no problem though with fire tax being seperate and based on size of house, whether you have sprinklers etc etc.

Exactly.

[Missouribronc]

OK, but I don't see how this changes the discussion about a decision to let a house burn down because the owner didn't pay his $75.00

Try reading it again.

Yes, I've looked into the story (not just read the original post) The fire department is actually supported by city taxes. They offer services to those outside the fire district for a yearly fee. They have no legal obligation to leave their local district, but care enough about their rural neighbors to offer the service at a small stipend to help pay for the equipment needed to service them.

In order to receive the OPTION of service, you must pay the stipend.

How hard is this to understand?

I'm interested in learning why there isn't a rural fire department anywhere around there. If I was a rural resident of that county, I would be banging down the doors of my county courthouse to enter into an agreement with the City of Fulton to provide services to the entire region, of course a tax would be applied, but that's how it works.

[bronclvr]

OK, but I don't see how this changes the discussion about a decision to let a house burn down because the owner didn't pay his $75.00

Wow....I'm speechless-(which is completely out of character for me if you would ask my Wife)-

[Taco John]

OK, but I don't see how this changes the discussion about a decision to let a house burn down because the owner didn't pay his $75.00

I don't doubt that you don't. New information doesn't tend to change your opinion on things.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I don't doubt that you don't. New information doesn't tend to change your opinion on things.

Not when the new information doesn't add anything that would resolve the original debate.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In order to receive the OPTION of service, you must pay the stipend.

How hard is this to understand?



How hard is it for you to understand that this does nothing to settle the debate, i.e., should the fire department stand there and watch a house burn down because the owner didn't pay the stipend?

[Taco John]

Not when the new information doesn't add anything that would resolve the original debate.

You've moved to goal posts from protecting property to allowing people to burn for not paying to have their property protected. I don't expect that you'll acknowledge that the first responders would do everything they could to save a life, regardless of whether they paid for fire services or not.

Everyone agrees that saving lives takes priority over everything here.

[bronclvr]

How hard is it for you to understand that this does nothing to settle the debate, i.e., should the fire department stand there and watch a house burn down because the owner didn't pay the stipend?

Not to subterfuge your point, but what if he lived just outside of the boundaries for payment (i.e. in an unincorporated area devoid of a Fire District?) Would they still be at fault in your eyes?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You've moved to goal posts from protecting property to allowing people to burn for not paying to have their property protected.

It isn't a "goal post move" it's the kind of thing most fire departments have to take into consideration when they're doing any sort of planning.


I don't expect that you'll acknowledge that the first responders would do everything they could to save a life, regardless of whether they paid for fire services or not.

Of course I will.

The question is: will you?

If so, then so much for your "deadbeat" argument.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Not to subterfuge your point, but what if he lived just outside of the boundaries for payment (i.e. in an unincorporated area devoid of a Fire District?) Would they still be at fault in your eyes?

Legally or morally?

[Taco John]

How hard is it for you to understand that this does nothing to settle the debate, i.e., should the fire department stand there and watch a house burn down because the owner didn't pay the stipend?


But it does settle the debate. The owner was not entitled to optional services that he didn't pay for. The fire chief has the responsibility to the community to preserve the fire program so that the greatest number of people can be serviced by it. The fire chief made a decision to protect the interests of the community at the expense of no one. And this is the thing that I expect that you truly don't understand. The decision of the fire chief made cost no one any additional expense. The decision that the property owner made, on the other hand, cost himself his property. It wasn't the fire chief's decision that cost him his property. It was his own.

It's unfortunate what happened, but the fire chief has an obligation to the community to keep the rural service viable for the greater benefit of the whole community.

[bronclvr]

Legally or morally?

OK, I'm not trying to trap you-how about both-

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And this is the thing that I expect that you truly don't understand. The decision of the fire chief made cost no one any additional expense.

Oh, I understand, alright - it's the quintessential "I got mine - screw everyone else" core of your ideology.

Here's what I expect you don't understand: There are a lot of people who wouldn't mind chipping in a little extra, if necessary, to see that the dude's house didn't burn down.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

OK, I'm not trying to trap you-how about both-

Legally - no (based on the info provided.)

Morally - yes.

[Taco John]

Oh, I understand, alright - it's the quintessential "I got mine - screw everyone else" core of your ideology.

Who is talking ideology here? I'm certainly not. As I said, I look at this situation as a practical matter, and practically speaking the fire chief has many obligations, chief among them is protecting the property of as many people as possible, and that means running a viable service.

If you want to talk ideology, the person who opted not to pay is the "I got mine - screw everybody else" character in the story. They expected service that they didn't intend to pay for. They intended to receive it while screwing everybody else who was paying for it. I'm not sure how you can turn a deadbeat trying to screw everybody else and got his comeuppance into a sympathetic figure. Especially while turning the people who risk their lives trying to aid their community into the bad guys. Twisted sense of morality, I guess.


The life savers are not the bad guys here. The deadbeat is.

Here's what I expect you don't understand: There are a lot of people who wouldn't mind chipping in a little extra, if necessary, to see that the dude's house didn't burn down.


If that's the case then why did this guys house burn down? I think there are a lot of people willing to get all emotional and state as much after the fact. But the rubber has already met the road here and the people that you describe apparently don't exist in any sort of numbers to have made a difference. But there's always the future. Do you expect to see a ballot initiative that protects the rural residents at the city taxpayer's expense?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If you want to talk ideology, the person who opted not to pay is the "I got mine - screw everybody else" character in the story. They expected service that they didn't intend to pay for. They intended to receive it while screwing everybody else who was paying for it.

How do you know he "didn't intend" to pay for the service?

Could there have been some other explanation (or mitigating circumstances?)


If that's the case then why did this guys house burn down? I think there are a lot of people willing to get all emotional and state as much after the fact. But the rubber has already met the road here.

How many residents of the area were aware of the situation? How many residents anticipated something like this would ever actually happen, i.e., that the fire department would sit and watch a house burn to the ground because the owner failed to pay $75.00 stipend? My guess would be that this was an incident without precedent.


Do you expect to see a ballot initiative that protects the rural residents at the city taxpayer's expense?

Doubtful - we're talking about Tennessee here, after all.

[Taco John]

How do you know he "didn't intend" to pay for the service?

Could there have been some other explanation (or mitigating circumstances?)

His payment history tells this tale. Research the story further and you'll find that Cranick's son's place caught on fire a couple years back, and the fire department put it out. They sent a bill. I'll let you take a wild guess on whether that bill got paid or not. Go 'head. Take a flyer on it.



How many residents of the area were aware of the situation? How many residents anticipated something like this would ever actually happen, i.e., that the fire department would sit and watch a house burn to the ground because the owner failed to pay $75.00 stipend? My guess would be that this was an incident without precedent.

Everyone in the area was aware of it because it happened already in 2008. After that happened, there was a proposal (http://troy.troytn.com/Obion%20County%20Fire%20Department%20Presentation% 20Presented%20to%20the%20County%20Commission.pdf) to establish a county-wide volunteer service. The commissioners didn't go for it, and instead voted nearly unanimously (http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=25587) for a subscription based service.

"If somebody is trapped in the house we're going to go because life safety is number one but we can't give the service away," Edmison said. "It's not South Fulton's problem. It's not Union City's problem. It's the county's problem. There is no county fire department."

"If we just waited to charge when we went out there, you'd be working on a per-call basis," he said. "With no more calls than there are, the money wouldn't be there in a sufficient source to buy the equipment you need."

"It's like car insurance," Edmison said. "I wish I could wait until I have an accident until I pay my premium on my car insurance, but it doesn't work that way. So why should the fire service be looked at anything different?"


http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/More-fallout-following-house-fire-104113489.html


Doubtful - we're talking about Tennessee here, after all.

Indeed. And how would you guess Gene Cranick votes? In favor of more taxes? Or against them?

[Taco John]

Also, there's another side to this story that people aren't taking into account. The fire department carries insurance for it's firemen. The policies are only active in cases where the resident is contributing to the policy (ie. paying through their taxes, or through the subscription). Even if it was a mansion on fire, the fire chief would have to refuse service for the fact that his men would be caught without insurance coverage if something went wrong, adding them to the burden of an already cash strapped city.

The decision the fire chief made protected the greatest amount of people against the selfish individual who thought he'd skate on payment but receive the benefit of it when he needed it.

It was the right decision.

[chadta]

LABF left his video cam on, i happened to look and this is what i saw


http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigchillphotos/2426169383/#/photos/bigchillphotos/2426169383/lightbox/


color me shocked

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF left his video cam on, i happened to look and this is what i saw


http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigchillphotos/2426169383/#/photos/bigchillphotos/2426169383/lightbox/


color me shocked

Weak! ::)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

of an already cash strapped city.

The decision the fire chief made protected the greatest amount of people against the selfish individual who thought he'd skate on payment but receive the benefit of it when he needed it.


You're trying to make it sound like $75.00 not collected from one individual in one instance in a small community is going to make or break the department.

Sounds like "emotional absolutism" (or however you put it) to me.

[Taco John]

You're trying to make it sound like $75.00 not collected from one individual in one instance in a small community is going to make or break the department.



Yes, that's exactly right. It's called "precedent." When the precedent is set that you don't have to pay for service until you need it, then the system breaks because people start to take advantage of the precedent. Further, precedent becomes legally binding regardless of the law. In fact, precedent holds much more weight in court than what the law actually says.

The fire chief opted to set the precedent that will give the program as it is currently established the longest possible lifespan and do the most amount of good for the most amount of people. It's not the utopian system that you seem to be dreaming of, but it's one that the local representatives voted in nearly unanimously.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yes, that's exactly right. It's called "precedent." When the precedent is set that you don't have to pay for service until you need it, then the system breaks because people start to take advantage of the precedent. Further, precedent becomes legally binding regardless of the law. In fact, precedent holds much more weight in court than what the law actually says.

Where is the evidence that this has happened in this particular community?

Sounds suspiciously close to Reagan's "welfare Cadillac" myth.

[Taco John]

Where is the evidence that this has happened in this particular community?

Sounds suspiciously close to Reagan's "welfare Cadillac" myth.


I've provided links, specific information, and perspective that presents a solid case. The best you have is reaching at straws asking for specific evidence from this particular that people who are offered the chance to get a free lunch will take it. Gene Cranic is evidence of this himself. You want more? No you don't. You want to win the debate by an endless string of questions that go nowhere and conflate the core issues.

[Taco John]

Here is an article from a smart progressive:


Kevin Lee: Smoke gets in your eyes
Posted on 08 October 2010 by Klee

Smoke gets in your eyes

By Kevin Lee

I can see the haze but it doesn’t smell like smoke as much as it does idiocy.

In case you haven’t heard, a house fire in Tennessee last week has the political Web ablaze over the role of public services and privatization. Mostly predictable, what’s so amusing to me is how folks on one side just don’t seem to understand what they’re really saying.

For the uninitiated, Gene Cranick lives in rural Obion County, not far from the Kentucky state line. The county is short on services, one of which is fire protection. Like many non-incorporated areas around the nation, the population is riddled with libertarians hanging on to the rugged individualism they sucked up from all those John Wayne movies. They don’t need “no gol dang city slickers” taking their money. Taxes? Why those are nothing more than a nuisance to them, robbery by the government bandits.

Shoot, Obion is Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett country. Them folks are used to plowing 100 acres before breakfast, stopping to chase teenage neighbor boys away from the sheep before skinning Grandma’s leathery hide to make winter boots with one hand while killing a grizzly with the other. Did I mention the neck deep snow? In April? With locusts?

Their “Don’t tread on me” mindset of course led the Obion County Commission to vote down a proposed $1.13 property tax in 2009, levied to fund fire protection for everyone in the county. (TJ note: So much for LABF's assertion that there are people there willing to pay extra to prevent this from happening). They weren’t going to be fooled. They didn’t want money going from their pockets into those that didn’t work for it. Sure it starts with a supposed “fire truck” but the next thing you know welfare queens and Swedish transsexuals are building mosques on Main Street.

Instead, by a vote of 19 to 1, they opted for continuing a subscription service, one where county residents pay the fire company in nearby South Fulton to come answer calls. They had done something like that for years anyway. Sure, the fire department got rooked a lot, answering calls for county citizens who far outnumbered the South Fulton residents but didn’t pay into the department’s funds but that’s the price others pay for you standing on your own feet.

The new subscription in Obion County was $75 a year, $6.25 a month, 21 cents a day, however you want to cut it, it was cheaper than the satellite dishes (and attendant services) that seem as common as meth labs these days. Something had to be done as South Fulton said it was going broke fighting fire in the 555 square miles of Obion County.

But Gene Cranick was having none of that. He didn’t toil away at cashing federal farm subsidies for his land in two states to just surrender it to Big Brother. Why, what would Davy Crockett say?

Besides when Cranick’s son’s place caught fire in the last couple of years, the department put it out despite the Cranicks’ lack of coverage. They billed the Cranicks later who never made right with restitution. Yeah, the fire department contacted the Cranicks by mail and phone to tell them they needed to pay, but what lengths did they expect the Cranicks go in order to insure their house and worldly belongings were safe?

“I just haven’t gotten around to it (this year),” Paulette Cranick said. She said the fire station is on the edge of town and “we don’t go out that way very often.”

Listen up, Firehouse Fascists: It’s not like there’s some service that magically picks up packages, written communication and business documents from an enchanted box and delivers it to an address printed on the outside of the container and/or envelope, something that people much like the Cranicks use to make sure the water, power, gas, phone and television keep working every month. Unless they could train those locusts…

So the Cranicks let their grandson burn trash not far from the house despite the fact that autumn in the South might as well be known as kindling season due to the dry weather. Who could have known that the fire would spread via embers then two short hours later, reach the house?

The fire department showed up as soon as a neighbor in good graces with the service called. They firemen asked if there was anyone in the house. Everyone was out. They refused to go in. They stood at the ready to protect the neighbor’s property but that was the extent of it.

I think what upset a good number of readers most was hearing that the Cranicks’ three dogs and one cat died in the fire. I can understand it because none of us like to think of crispy critters. But I can’t help wondering, why did the Cranicks leave the animals inside? In the two hours that the fire approached, they never thought to round any of them up and get them away? C’mon, my wife starts dragging out pet carriers the moment a tropical system hits Cuba.

Gene Cranick has said he assumed the firemen would answer the call and do their job.

As an official, “Pinko-Commie-Liberal-Bed Wetting-Fascist-Leftist-Socialist-Anti Colonial-Latte Sipping-NPR Listening-Naturally Double Transgendered-Elitist-Fellow Traveling-Secular Humanist-Terrorist Aiding-Bin Laden Humping American”© I of course heard the hue and cry about the evils of approaching privatization. Those voices decried the inhumanity of the firemen, how they could just stand and watch the tragedy unfold.

I don’t necessarily think that was the right response by the department. The firemen should have at least made an effort to retrieve the pets, then once again billed the Cranicks later. The firefighters cited insurance that wouldn’t cover anyone injured in the attempt, though since Cranick wasn’t a customer.

Now, Mobile has a history of utilizing private sector incentives in historic fire departments, namely in 19th Century volunteer companies partially funded by the city but not under its control or jurisdiction. Things didn’t go as assumed there, either.

One way the firemen earned money was via bounties paid by insurance companies to the first company arriving at a blaze. Department personnel began to be connected with arson; seeding business, as it were. Occasionally, fights broke out between companies who arrived simultaneously, each wanting the bounty. Conflagration be damned, there was money to be made!

The city put an end to it by the end of that century, going full in on public departments.

I know someone else whose house burned recently. They lost pets, too but were thankful they got away with their lives. Insurance and fortune landed them a house they like better than the first.

Gene Cranick might be in the same boat. He had insurance for the house but I’d bet it was far more than $75 a year.

While I understand these upset liberals and have no beef with their sympathy for someone undergoing a tragedy, they are forgetting something at the essence of the incident. At the bedrock of the American liberal ideal is supposed to be a belief in community, that we are best when we band together. Cranick and his ilk rebuke that, taking the selfish route. They don’t want to pay in, they don’t want to be part of things except when it benefits them and then they still won’t take the opportunity to pay what they owe. And it’s philosophies like that, actions like his that will gut public services in the end.

We’ve seen similar sentiments around Mobile, in the struggles for incorporation and annexation, people who decry the evils of urban life while demanding the same benefits as those willing to throw their lot in with a formalized community. Sadly unsurprising in a state that pulls in $1.66 in federal funds for every $1 thrown into the pot. However, at least Semmes had the responsibility to form a volunteer fire department.

But don’t worry. There’s still a community of sorts for those who just want to consume with no regard for consequences, who act only for themselves.

Remember those locusts?

http://modmobilian.com/tag/gene-cranick/

[frerottenextelway]

I've provided links, specific information, and perspective that presents a solid case. The best you have is reaching at straws asking for specific evidence from this particular that people who are offered the chance to get a free lunch will take it. Gene Cranic is evidence of this himself. You want more? No you don't. You want to win the debate by an endless string of questions that go nowhere and conflate the core issues.

Don't buy it.

Other than short periods where I've lived in the city here, I've spent my whole life with volunteer fire departments in multiple townships. Having grown up with many of my friends volunteering, I know first hand the argument you make is wrong.

Even worse than factually wrong, it is morally disgusting. If "Christian" is defined as one who follows the teachings of Christ, I as an Atheist consider myself more Christian than anyone who finds this acceptable.

EDIT: Also, the entire cost to the fire department has to legally be repaid by insurance companies. The entire money argument is just wrong... on so many levels.

EDIT2: The company that covers my area that consists of real men and women making the world a better place:

http://www.brooksidefire.org/about_us.aspx

[Garcia Bronco]

Tj's article pretty much shuts down the thread. After reading that and you still think this homeowner is clear of being a complete moron for not paying the 75 bucks... There is really nothing more to discuss.

[That One Guy]

Tj's article pretty much shuts down the thread. After reading that and you still think this homeowner is clear of being a complete moron for not paying the 75 bucks... There is really nothing more to discuss.

Agreed. I'd like to see LABF's response (but unfortunately he'd just introduce another question out of left field to try and pretend he still has an argument) and I'd like to know if it's true that the insurance will cover all costs as I didn't know that. Whether someone has insurance on their home in the middle of BFE is a scenario that clouds everything though, I guess.

After that, I really just can't see how anyone would claim the fire department was still in the wrong.

[frerottenextelway]

Tj's article pretty much shuts down the thread. After reading that and you still think this homeowner is clear of being a complete moron for not paying the 75 bucks... There is really nothing more to discuss.

And yet I've been surrounded by fire heroes my whole life who would not only not demand the $75, but would refuse it on scene. I guess that's the difference between good and bad, and perhaps the South and New England.

[Pony Boy]

I really like the show "'Justified" on FX and I think that would make a great episode if you add a meth lab in the house and pit bulls on chains to protect the property.

[Garcia Bronco]

And yet I've been surrounded by fire heroes my whole life who would not only not demand the $75, but would refuse it on scene. I guess that's the difference between good and bad, and perhaps the South and New England.

Look. Sometimes you just can't do anything legally. Tj article exposes the fact that the have history eighths family not paying. So the lesson here is to pay your bills and meet you obligations.

[frerottenextelway]

Look. Sometimes you just can't do anything legally. Tj article exposes the fact that the have history eighths family not paying. So the lesson here is to pay your bills and meet you obligations.

Still don't buy it at all.

At least in the state of Pennsylvania, they can recover their expenses PLUS man hours from insurance companies. I know this because I have written checks from the IC I work for to fire companies for their expenses. I would assume this applies across the nation.

Second, the township I live in is all volunteer. It's just so ridiculous. They'll go two or three townships over (or more) to assist. And again, they are volunteers. There is no income other than donations and collections. And you are telling me this company couldn't survive without $75 and had to let a house burn? My gosh that is wrong (and evil). Is that really your America?

[Taco John]

Still don't buy it at all.

At least in the state of Pennsylvania, they can recover their expenses PLUS man hours from insurance companies. I know this because I have written checks from the IC I work for to fire companies for their expenses. I would assume this applies across the nation.

Second, the township I live in is all volunteer. It's just so ridiculous. They'll go two or three townships over (or more) to assist. And again, they are volunteers. There is no income other than donations and collections. And you are telling me this company couldn't survive without $75 and had to let a house burn? My gosh that is evil. Is that really your America?

What does this have anything to do with "your or my America?" This is Tennessee. They live in America too, and this is the America that they've chosen for themselves. They had a bond measure to tax $1.19 to everybody in the county to extend fire services, and they voted it down in favor of the subscription model. To demonize the fire fighters over this ignores the fact that this is what the community chose for themselves. THAT is my America.

[chadta]

Still don't buy it at all.

At least in the state of Pennsylvania,

I would assume this applies across the nation.


what a convincing argument

[frerottenextelway]

what a convincing argument

We're a PA based company. We deal in 13 states, including Tennessee. I've personally signed my name to the checks. I will believe my lying eyes over the nuh uh argument here, thank you very much.

[frerottenextelway]

What does this have anything to do with "your or my America?" This is Tennessee. They live in America too, and this is the America that they've chosen for themselves. They had a bond measure to tax $1.19 to everybody in the county to extend fire services, and they voted it down in favor of the subscription model. To demonize the fire fighters over this ignores the fact that this is what the community chose for themselves. THAT is my America.

You have to fight fires to be a firefighter. Fire cowards may be more appropriate here. I will demonize the devils, tyvm.

I don't know a single firefighter that would let a home burn, ever, for any reason. The ones I know actually pay their own money to take the tests and for some equipment and things like gas. They are heroes. These "people" are not. But like I said, maybe that is the difference between good and bad and the country we are becoming.

[Garcia Bronco]

Still don't buy it at all.

At least in the state of Pennsylvania, they can recover their expenses PLUS man hours from insurance companies. I know this because I have written checks from the IC I work for to fire companies for their expenses. I would assume this applies across the nation.

Second, the township I live in is all volunteer. It's just so ridiculous. They'll go two or three townships over (or more) to assist. And again, they are volunteers. There is no income other than donations and collections. And you are telling me this company couldn't survive without $75 and had to let a house burn? My gosh that is wrong (and evil). Is that really your America?

You are assuming he has insurance to get expenses from. Tj article pointed out that if they don't pay 75 bucks that the firemen aren't cover in FD insurance. These heros risk enough. Do the need to risk their families too?

[Garcia Bronco]

Your VFD is awesome. It has nothing to do with this topic.

[chadta]

We're a PA based company. We deal in 13 states, including Tennessee. I've personally signed my name to the checks. I will believe my lying eyes over the nuh uh argument here, thank you very much.

as you should, but you sure dont sound very confident in making your point

im curious tho, if everybody didnt pay fees and just sent bills to insurance, wouldnt that cause insurance rates to go up ? at what point does insurance say hey, if you dont have fire protection we arent covering you ?

I know up here in canada you can not get a mortgage to buy a house without insurance, you cant get aut insurance without having a drivers license, so why would fire insurance say yeah we will cover you but you dont have to do anything to try and help yourself ?

[frerottenextelway]

You are assuming he has insurance to get expenses from. Tj article pointed out that if they don't pay 75 bucks that the firemen aren't cover in FD insurance. These heros risk enough. Do the need to risk their families too?

The average yearly amount of uncovered expenses from structure fires because a family doesn't a.) have homeowners AND b.) won't pay the bill is going to be almost negligible and can't be much more than maybe 1 day fundraising.

As to the other point, I don't believe it.

[Garcia Bronco]

The average yearly amount of uncovered expenses from structure fires because a family doesn't a.) have homeowners AND b.) won't pay the bill is going to be almost negligible and can't be much more than maybe 1 day fundraising.

As to the other point, I don't believe it.

So you argument is that the dead beat price is negligible so it doesn't matter. You can't get nothing for nothing. You and this guy Crankis deserve each other. Lol.

Believe what you want, but don't sit here and tell me you know insurance.

[Taco John]

What we have here are two competing social theories. In one, the government is to take care of you, regardless of whether you are contributing to the system. And in the other, you receive assistance only where you have contributed to the system. In the way Tennessee does things, the man didn't pay, and thus the consequence was that he didn't receive services.

What if this man lived in Mass and refused to pay his taxes. What would the consequences be for him then?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The average yearly amount of uncovered expenses from structure fires because a family doesn't a.) have homeowners AND b.) won't pay the bill is going to be almost negligible and can't be much more than maybe 1 day fundraising.



That's what I suspected.

The whole issue is just Ronnie's "welfare Cadillac" redux for teabaggers.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Don't buy it.

Other than short periods where I've lived in the city here, I've spent my whole life with volunteer fire departments in multiple townships. Having grown up with many of my friends volunteering, I know first hand the argument you make is wrong.

Even worse than factually wrong, it is morally disgusting. If "Christian" is defined as one who follows the teachings of Christ, I as an Atheist consider myself more Christian than anyone who finds this acceptable.

EDIT: Also, the entire cost to the fire department has to legally be repaid by insurance companies. The entire money argument is just wrong... on so many levels.

EDIT2: The company that covers my area that consists of real men and women making the world a better place:

http://www.brooksidefire.org/about_us.aspx

Interesting.

I knew if I stuck around long enough someone would expose the bill of goods I suspected was being sold here.

[Taco John]

That's what I suspected.

The whole issue is just Ronnie's "welfare Cadillac" redux for teabaggers.


This is empty rhetoric, and the worst part of it is that you know it. You just politic by sloganeering, and wait for the pats on the backs that eventually come.

I feel bad for this guy who cost himself and his family a lot of property, but at the end of the day he wasn't willing to participate in the social system that was available to him until he needed it. But the fact of the matter is that there WAS a social system readily available, and its one that his community overwhelmingly agreed to. He had the freedom to opt out, and took it. Not only that, but he continued to do high risk things like burn his garbage in burning barrels in a dry area that put his property in danger.

The bottom line is that he has no one to blame for himself, and his community got put on notice of the reality of there collective choice. This is how social evolution happens. They now get to decide whether this system is still viable for them, or whether they would like to make a different collective choice. Given the history that I've read, I'm guessing that they'll opt collectively to maintain the status quo.

[sirhcyennek81]

What we have here are two competing social theories. In one, the government is to take care of you, regardless of whether you are contributing to the system. And in the other, you receive assistance only where you have contributed to the system. In the way Tennessee does things, the man didn't pay, and thus the consequence was that he didn't receive services.

What if this man lived in Mass and refused to pay his taxes. What would the consequences be for him then?


He has to park his new shiny yacht in Rhode Island.


:Broncos:

[broncocalijohn]

I think I am going to cancel my auto insurance tomorrow and just wing it. If I happen to get in an accident, I will just have one of the insurance companies (and maybe my former one) take me back. I dont want to be to brazen so I will just ask them to cover my damages and I will pay a small portion of the total cost.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is empty rhetoric, and the worst part of it is that you know it. You just politic by sloganeering, and wait for the pats on the backs that eventually come.


If that's how you would summarize this discussion, then you must be making it up to suit yourself.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The bottom line is that he has no one to blame for himself, and his community got put on notice of the reality of there collective choice. This is how social evolution happens. They now get to decide whether this system is still viable for them, or whether they would like to make a different collective choice. Given the history that I've read, I'm guessing that they'll opt collectively to maintain the status quo.

Sorry - that just doesn't jibe with the updated info from an actual fire fighter...

The average yearly amount of uncovered expenses from structure fires because a family doesn't a.) have homeowners AND b.) won't pay the bill is going to be almost negligible and can't be much more than maybe 1 day fundraising.

[Taco John]

Sorry - that just doesn't jibe with the updated info from an actual fire fighter...

I'm not certain how you think that info changes the argument at all. It's a non-sequitur.

[Garcia Bronco]

LABF...lol...you are repeating what-his-name opinion and taking it as fact.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm not certain how you think that info changes the argument at all. It's a non-sequitur.

Here's how it changes the argument:

When it was suggested that the fire department put out the fire and then collect the fee later, you said this option wouldn't be viable insofar as the recovery costs would present an insurmountable obstacle.

New evidence that those costs would, in fact, be negligible was subsequently presented by an actual veteran fire fighter.

[cutthemdown]

Yeah but then people will say why pay the 75 bucks. Just wait until you need the fire dept then pay after. In the meantime the fire dept stops offering services in that city all together because no one pays.

That's the liberal way. Let's just let other pay for us then complain when we don't get services.

[Taco John]

Here's how it changes the argument:

When it was suggested that the fire department put out the fire and then collect the fee later, you said this option wouldn't be viable insofar as the recovery costs would present an insurmountable obstacle.

New evidence that those costs would, in fact, be negligible was subsequently presented by an actual veteran fire fighter.


That's not what I said at all. You pretty much made that up. I never said that it would be an "insurmountable" obstacle. You and FNE destroyed a point that I didn't really make and have done nothing to touch the superstructure of the case presented in favor of the firemen - the major point being that they democratically chose this particular form of service for themselves.

[Bronco Yoda]

The cost of fire service should be built in for all property/home owners (Taxes). No one should be allowed to just opt out. Why? Becaues it affects EVERYONE. I don't want my property and family in danger because my neighbor isn't current on his fire dues.

The guy was stupid for not paying his dues. But I'm looking at the bigger picture. This fire could have spread out of control. The wind comes up and the fire explodes in three directions. One way goes towards town. One way goes towards the boy scout camp a few miles away. The third goes straigt for the next farm down the hill who has paid the fire fees. So now that the fire chief let this thing get out of hand, now what?

In the end the town was spared. But the sewage plant burned and a local electric relay station burned down. The Boy Scouts were evacuated but the entire forrest burned to the ground along with some high-tension power lines going to the town. They happened to save the neighbors house but the barn and some animals were lost. Not that it matters anyway since the neighbor was burned alive in his neighbors house during the BBQ. In all the confusion no one realized someone was trapped in the house. And the fire department didn't go in to clear the house. You know...the first house that didn't pay it's fees and was allowed burn out of control and start the whole mess in this scenario.

btw, this exact scenario (besides the neighbor death) did happen years ago in Colorado as a fire department watched a fire burn in a rural area in an old abandoned hunting cabin. They thought it was under control and a good place for a 'natural burn' clearing.

But the fire quickly got out of hand. Imagine that. A fire getting out of hand.

Lesson here? Don't mess around with fire. Everyone will pay for it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's not what I said at all. You pretty much made that up. I never said that it would be an "insurmountable" obstacle.

Those weren't your exact words (can't find the post in question) but the gist of your argument was that putting out the fire and then recovering the $75.00 fee after the fact would not be a viable option - period.

FNE basically destroyed that argument.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah but then people will say why pay the 75 bucks. Just wait until you need the fire dept then pay after.

Not necessarily.

This guy who didn't pay the $75 probably isn't representative of most people.

Moreover, you could charge a hefty penalty on top of the $75 that would discourage such behavior.

Finally, we're talking about house fires here. How many of those actually occur in a community that size?

It's not like we're talking about a policy that has the potential for frequent abuse.


That's the liberal way. Let's just let other pay for us then complain when we don't get services.

Straw man.

I just got done saying he should pay one way or the other.

[Taco John]

Those weren't your exact words (can't find the post in question) but the gist of your argument was that putting out the fire and then recovering the $75.00 fee after the fact would not be a viable option - period.

FNE basically destroyed that argument.

Not that it wouldn't be a viable option. Just that the history showed that this particular family wouldn't pay (they hadn't before), and that this option would cost the fire department time and energy trying to hunt down this payment.

My argument wasn't destroyed in the least.

[Pony Boy]

Yeah but then people will say why pay the 75 bucks. Just wait until you need the fire dept then pay after. In the meantime the fire dept stops offering services in that city all together because no one pays.
That's the liberal way. Let's just let other pay for us then complain when we don't get services.

It's really worse than that, in a community with a volunteer fire department if the fees aren't paid in advance, there is no fire department. The fees purchase the equipment to fight the fire. "No pay no Spray" that's the bottom line.

[Requiem]

Gondor calls for aid.

[chadta]

It's really worse than that, in a community with a volunteer fire department if the fees aren't paid in advance, there is no fire department. The fees purchase the equipment to fight the fire. "No pay no Spray" that's the bottom line.


its worse then that

the people of that community CHOSE to have it that way, why some people in california see the need to get involved s beyond me, the people have spoken, they got what they asked for, this really isnt a story at all.

[sirhcyennek81]

Gondor calls for aid.


Theoden has betrayed me...


:Broncos:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Not that it wouldn't be a viable option. Just that the history showed that this particular family wouldn't pay (they hadn't before), and that this option would cost the fire department time and energy trying to hunt down this payment.

My argument wasn't destroyed in the least.

FNE introduced evidence that the aforementioned cost would be negligible.

[Rohirrim]

Theoden has betrayed me...


:Broncos:

Abandon your posts! Flee! Flee for your lives!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/palin-fanhrent-baggers.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Just came across this on another board...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=130436382 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130436382)

My jaw hit the floor.

Fire department refuses to put out house fire over $75

The neighbors even offered them thousands of dollars. The firefighters stood by and watched it burn because they were told to. They lost their entire home and everything in it, their three dogs and their cat.

Apparently, firefighters have called and apologized to them. The people involved are taking it with a grain of salt. That's probably the most amazing part of the story.


Update from circusinthesky:
Sounds like the Grandson later went and knocked out the Fire Chief. (http://www.firehouse.com/news/top-headlines/tenn-chief-attacked-over-house-allowed-burn)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The irony of the whole thing is that people will b*tch, moan and complain about an additional $75 on their property tax bill for fire service, but still pay a $75 fee for fire protection.

I've heard some right-wingnuts say "I don't want my tax dollars to go for ER services for some lazy welfare bum."

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y34/Zilmo/2ntixs8.gif

How many firefighters and volunteers from across the nation hauled ass to NYC after 9-11 to help those in need? You know - to do the right thing?

I guess these old folks just weren't worth it.

Aren't there laws that require you stop to render aid if you come upon an accident? But what if they don't pay their bills? Do you stop and ask first? Or do you stop to help out and charge them for your time and first aid kit afterward? Or, should citizens start a "program" were we get funded annually to provide this service to idiot motorists should they fail to yield...?


I dunno .. its just wrong.

[chadta]

Aren't there laws that require you stop to render aid if you come upon an accident? But what if they don't pay their bills?

dunno, but you once again miss the point, no people were in danger, it was just property, are you to now tell me that if somebody has a flat tire on the side of the road you are obligated to stop and help repair it ? should everybody then stop and wait until it is repaired before they proceed ? they may have ice cream in the back of the car that would melt, its of the utmost importance to get it fixed in a timely manner.

a yes the liberal utopia, everybody working towards the common good, where people who put no effort to anything still get to reap the benefits.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

dunno, but you once again miss the point, no people were in danger...

How would they know that for sure?


it was just property, are you to now tell me that if somebody has a flat tire on the side of the road you are obligated to stop and help repair it ?

A flat tire = someone's home, all their worldly possessions, their pets, etc.

Now there's an equation only a right-wing chimp could come up with.


a yes the liberal utopia...

Where, in your mind, "liberal utopia" is obviously synonymous with "common decency, morality, compassion," etc.

We get it - you're a sociopath who doesn't give a f_ck about anyone else.

[NUB]

On scene firefighters watching a home burn to the ground is so intensely immoral I'm genuinely disturbed that this is being debated. "He didn't pay the $75!" Shut the **** up, you're a human being for goodness sake. There's no justification for it. Put out the fire and hammer out the details later. The fact he begged the firemen and offered to pay anything, and his neighbor asked them to help as well, adds a seriously malicious element to the story. I don't know if any of you have seen your own home on fire before, but I have and the thought of people doing this blows my mind.

But the immorality of it does not even get to the blatant stupidity of it which isn't being mentioned as much as it should be: a fire was left to itself in a dry season. I have been involved with a field fire (which had people carrying buckets and hoses to save the homes of strangers because we're actually human out here) and that kind of fire can spread faster and wider than you can prepare for if you're not careful. That fire burnt straight through the entire community's effort as well as the fire department. At best we could protect our homes with water, but the fire itself could only burn itself out. What happened here is not just immoral, it is borderline negligence.

[That One Guy]

I really don't like the direction our country is headed. Decisions have consequences and lessons are learned the easy way (planning) or the hard way (failing to plan).

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

On scene firefighters watching a home burn to the ground is so intensely immoral I'm genuinely disturbed that this is being debated. "He didn't pay the $75!" Shut the **** up, you're a human being for goodness sake. There's no justification for it. Put out the fire and hammer out the details later. The fact he begged the firemen and offered to pay anything, and his neighbor asked them to help as well, adds a seriously malicious element to the story. I don't know if any of you have seen your own home on fire before, but I have and the thought of people doing this blows my mind.

But the immorality of it does not even get to the blatant stupidity of it which isn't being mentioned as much as it should be: a fire was left to itself in a dry season. I have been involved with a field fire (which had people carrying buckets and hoses to save the homes of strangers because we're actually human out here) and that kind of fire can spread faster and wider than you can prepare for if you're not careful. That fire burnt straight through the entire community's effort as well as the fire department. At best we could protect our homes with water, but the fire itself could only burn itself out. What happened here is not just immoral, it is borderline negligence.

Hammer --> nail --> head. :thumbsup:

Good to see that not everyone suffers from EDD (Empathy Deficit Disorder.)

Even if we allow that the guy was stupid and/or irresponsible in not paying the $75, it doesn't follow that we should "teach him a lesson" by standing there and letting his house burn down and his pets die.

[That One Guy]

Ha!

It happened again. Even after all the publicity they got, the folks still didn't get around to paying the bill. $75 or let your house burn, take a pick. I love that someone's finally standing up for responsibility and not caving to all the bad publicity they got last year.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-191241763.html

[Spider]

Ha!

It happened again. Even after all the publicity they got, the folks still didn't get around to paying the bill. $75 or let your house burn, take a pick. I love that someone's finally standing up for responsibility and not caving to all the bad publicity they got last year.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-191241763.html

LOl you love it huh , well you are aa pretty ****ed up person no doubt , Do you even have any idea what the economy is like there ? no of course not , you just take joy in people suffering ............... Karma is a bitch mother ****er ........

[Fedaykin]

Ha!

It happened again. Even after all the publicity they got, the folks still didn't get around to paying the bill. $75 or let your house burn, take a pick. I love that someone's finally standing up for responsibility and not caving to all the bad publicity they got last year.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-191241763.html

Gotta love that the people running public services apparently graduated from the mobsters management school.

Homeowner: My house is on fire! I'll pay you to put it out.

Fireman: Well, looks like you didn't pay your protection money. Quite the shame! It is a nice night for a bonfire though, isn't it?

Homeowner: ...

[Garcia Bronco]

Gotta love that the people running public services apparently graduated from the mobsters management school.

Homeowner: My house is on fire! I'll pay you to put it out.

Fireman: Well, looks like you didn't pay your protection money. Quite the shame! It is a nice night for a bonfire though, isn't it?

Homeowner: ...

LOL....


I still feel the same way. Idiots need to pay their bills or suffer the consequences.

[broncocalijohn]

LOL....


I still feel the same way. Idiots need to pay their bills or suffer the consequences.

Sorry but true. That is how it is set up, don't expect someone to save your house AFTER the fact. Why we pay insurance on our belongings. Maybe I should crash into a Mercedes and then sign up for car insurance and bill them the accident that happened before I got the insurance. I believe LABF stated to just put it on Property Taxes like most things. It is easier for that and not sure why rural areas don't set it up that way. I guess they like living on the edge. Maybe charge $2000 on the spot once they get there. That is over 25 years worth of fire protection paid at once.

[broncocalijohn]

BTW, we are not required to buy earthquake insurance but only 15% of the people due (in California). Should the state pay to fix up their property when they refuse to pay $800 or more a year on it? We do every year and even though it has hurt to pay for it the last couple of years, the thought of losing our home and being in a shelter isn't worth it.

[That One Guy]

Sorry but true. That is how it is set up, don't expect someone to save your house AFTER the fact. Why we pay insurance on our belongings. Maybe I should crash into a Mercedes and then sign up for car insurance and bill them the accident that happened before I got the insurance. I believe LABF stated to just put it on Property Taxes like most things. It is easier for that and not sure why rural areas don't set it up that way. I guess they like living on the edge. Maybe charge $2000 on the spot once they get there. That is over 25 years worth of fire protection paid at once.

I'd say they're outside the taxing jurisdiction for the urban area and the county doesn't see the need to force upon them what they could get, if they wanted, on their own.

That or the city makes the offer with the intent that some will opt out and if everyone opted in, they'd be overloaded. If it were mandatory though, the extra income could surely justify additional men and/or trucks, I'd think.

[Rohirrim]

If a man falls down in a Walmart, suffering from a heart attack, should anybody around him bother to do anything about it? If a group of thugs is beating a man on the streets, should anybody intercede? If a child is run over by a car, should anybody go to the child's aid? And if so, why? If it's none of their business, why get involved?

[Spider]

BTW, we are not required to buy earthquake insurance but only 15% of the people due (in California). Should the state pay to fix up their property when they refuse to pay $800 or more a year on it? We do every year and even though it has hurt to pay for it the last couple of years, the thought of losing our home and being in a shelter isn't worth it.

ok earthquake insurance you dont have it a earthquake breaks a gas line , causes a fire , your house is burning , But you dont have earthquake ins so F;ck you ........Right

[Fedaykin]

BTW, we are not required to buy earthquake insurance but only 15% of the people due (in California). Should the state pay to fix up their property when they refuse to pay $800 or more a year on it? We do every year and even though it has hurt to pay for it the last couple of years, the thought of losing our home and being in a shelter isn't worth it.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

* Insurance to pay-for-service
* Something that cannot be stopped by human action to something that can.

If the problem is funding the service, there is no reason not to accept payment for actual services rendered in lieu of paying for it over the long term. The only reason not to accept payment for services is to be a dick.

$75/yr vs. one lump sum.

[Garcia Bronco]

If a man falls down in a Walmart, suffering from a heart attack, should anybody around him bother to do anything about it? If a group of thugs is beating a man on the streets, should anybody intercede? If a child is run over by a car, should anybody go to the child's aid? And if so, why? If it's none of their business, why get involved?

Those aren't the same situations though are they. No they are not.

These rural homeowners are well aware of the responsilibity and where they are getting their fire protection from. The FD used to help these people on the spot if they had not paid, but the rural residents took advantage of them. So the FD stopped breaking their own rules. I see no problem with it. Let it burn down. It's the only way most people will learn.

Also if the local insurance agent is smart, they make FD service a part of the policy and then not only will their house burn down, but the insurance company won't cover their crap either.

PAY THE 75 dollars.

[Garcia Bronco]

You're comparing apples to oranges.

* Insurance to pay-for-service
* Something that cannot be stopped by human action to something that can.

If the problem is funding the service, there is no reason not to accept payment for actual services rendered in lieu of paying for it over the long term. The only reason not to accept payment for services is to be a dick.

$75/yr vs. one lump sum.

I disagree. It cost more than 75 dollars for the service call. All they have to do is pay the money and then they don't have to worry about it. But I would offer the service on the spot for 10,000 cash. On the spot.

[Fedaykin]

To be clear: This is not an insurance premium they are paying. It's a service fee. The fire company is not insuring them against fire (all "protection money" jokes aside), they are charging a fee to come put it out.

If you own a home is this area for 40 years (probably typical), you'll end up paying over $3,000 (more with cost inflation adjustment). So the "put your fire out" fee could start at, say, $5,000. I'd bet you'd have the insurance companies willing to pay firefighters $5,000 to save them having to payout the full value of the insurance.

[Fedaykin]

I disagree. It cost more than 75 dollars for the service call. All they have to do is pay the money and then they don't have to worry about it. But I would offer the service on the spot for 10,000 cash. On the spot.

Perhaps I was unclear, but that's what I was saying.

If the purpose is to fund operations, there no reason not to accept a lump payment vs. an amortized payment.

[El Minion]

If a man falls down in a Walmart, suffering from a heart attack, should anybody around him bother to do anything about it? If a group of thugs is beating a man on the streets, should anybody intercede? If a child is run over by a car, should anybody go to the child's aid? And if so, why? If it's none of their business, why get involved?

Since Republican and business conservatives are clamoring to be more like China and follow their lead, this should answer your question to what Republicans favor for America's other 99%, like those whose homes burned down. NSFW.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UqVYUzHc5L8" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

[Fedaykin]

dunno, but you once again miss the point, no people were in danger, it was just property, are you to now tell me that if somebody has a flat tire on the side of the road you are obligated to stop and help repair it ? should everybody then stop and wait until it is repaired before they proceed ? they may have ice cream in the back of the car that would melt, its of the utmost importance to get it fixed in a timely manner.

a yes the liberal utopia, everybody working towards the common good, where people who put no effort to anything still get to reap the benefits.

This is an old post, but:

It actually is illegal, in most jurisdictions, for professionally trained and/or certified people to not stop and give emergency aid related to their training. For example, it's illegal for an M.D. to not provide emergency medical aid. They can have their license revoked and be fined IIRC (at least in my state). Even something relatively simple like training/certs to use "automatic" defibrillators have this requirement attached to them.

Now, this obviously doesn't apply to firefighters in this particular area (or perhaps it does only if people are in danger or there's some other loophole).

[Garcia Bronco]

Since Republican and business conservatives are clamoring to be more like China and follow their lead, this should answer your question to what Republicans favor for America's other 99%, like those whose homes burned down. NSFW.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UqVYUzHc5L8" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>


I've seen this and no one here supports that kind of thing.

[Garcia Bronco]

Perhaps I was unclear, but that's what I was saying.

If the purpose is to fund operations, there no reason not to accept a lump payment vs. an amortized payment.

These people are offering to pay the 75 on the spot. That's the part I was getting at. But here's the kicker...they're aren't going to have the 10k on hand either...so their house is still gonna burn down.

[Fedaykin]

I've seen this and no one here supports that kind of thing.

You don't support running over 2YO's, but you do support letting people's lives be ruined to "teach them a lesson". Significantly less sick, but still sick.

[Blart]

This is hilarious, thanks for the bump. The ultimate libertarian stereotype realized.

edit: (yikes, not the kid, the OP)

[broncocalijohn]

You don't support running over 2YO's, but you do support letting people's lives be ruined to "teach them a lesson". Significantly less sick, but still sick.

First, two year old was a life and death situation. House burning with no one inside is not life or death. The thing is they were tryng to beat the system. If they had the $75 on hand, why didnt they send it to the VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT when the money was needed to begin with? Fire department did not ruin their lives; They ruined their own lives! Stop blaming others for your own problems! I bet every year the husband tells the wife, "See, we saved another $75!" Well now they should realize that it is an insurance policy just like any other you buy. Remember, if you only have to pay once you need the fire department, there would be no fire department as the funds would be too low.

[Fedaykin]

First, two year old was a life and death situation. House burning with no one inside is not life or death.


Like I said, significantly less sick.


The thing is they were tryng to beat the system. If they had the $75 on hand, why didnt they send it to the VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT when the money was needed to begin with?



Fire department did not ruin their lives; They ruined their own lives! Stop blaming others for your own problems!


I didn't say *who* ruined their lives. However, the fire dept did have the ability to prevent that from happening so I do think they share in the moral responsibility for it -- different only in scale from leaving a 2YO screaming in the street.


I bet every year the husband tells the wife, "See, we saved another $75!" Well now they should realize that it is an insurance policy just like any other you buy.

It's not an insurance policy. It's a for pay service.

Now, to be clear, I thinking more of the previous case where the guy offered to pay a large sum of money (who, IIRC, simple forgot go pay the regular fee that year) and they still sat on their asses. I don't know if this second instance is similar or not.

Remember, if you only have to pay once you need the fire department, there would be no fire department as the funds would be too low.

Not true. In this particular case it's a city fire department, funded by property taxes (as civilized communities do), that is offering rural fire services in addition to it's regular work.

Though, clearly it's just running a protection racket as that's the only thing that could explain why they refuse to accept payments for services rendered as was offered.

[Rohirrim]

Those aren't the same situations though are they. No they are not.

These rural homeowners are well aware of the responsilibity and where they are getting their fire protection from. The FD used to help these people on the spot if they had not paid, but the rural residents took advantage of them. So the FD stopped breaking their own rules. I see no problem with it. Let it burn down. It's the only way most people will learn.

Also if the local insurance agent is smart, they make FD service a part of the policy and then not only will their house burn down, but the insurance company won't cover their crap either.

PAY THE 75 dollars.

Of course it's the same thing. What the firemen did violates the basic concept of citizenship. The fundamental concept is that we are all in it together. That's what makes us stronger. It's why we gather in societies. Together we are stronger than we are as individuals. It's a moral imperative of human society. The firemen violated that imperative. Should the man whose house burned down be driving down the road and see another house on fire, would he be impelled to report it, or just keep driving? See? How many people say, "**** the moral imperative" before there is no society at all? Already the rich have separated themselves out. If they can find a better tax rate elsewhere, why not leave? Corporate America now runs on the motto, "The only responsibility we have is to our stock holders." It's trickle down. Eventually, nobody gives a **** about anybody. The idea of selflessness becomes a joke. Patriotism becomes passe.

That's the world we're building now. Businesses take jobs overseas. They don't owe anybody in America anything. They're not members of "communities." Why should they give a ****? Companies figure out ways to hire more people for fewer hours so they don't have to give any workers benefits. Why should they be on the hook to treat employees like anything other than odious overhead? On and on it goes, until a guy has a heart attack, falls down in the aisle of store, and people step over him. The entire leadership structure of our society has sent the message, "We are not responsible." Don't be surprised when the people respond, "Neither are we."

[Fedaykin]

Of course it's the same thing. What the firemen did violates the basic concept of citizenship. The fundamental concept is that we are all in it together. That's what makes us stronger. It's why we gather in societies. Together we are stronger than we are as individuals. It's a moral imperative of human society. The firemen violated that imperative. Should the man whose house burned down be driving down the road and see another house on fire, would he be impelled to report it, or just keep driving? See? How many people say, "**** the moral imperative" before there is no society at all? Already the rich have separated themselves out. Corporate America now runs on the motto, "The only responsibility we have is to our stock holders." It's trickle down. Eventually, nobody gives a **** about anybody. The idea of selflessness becomes a joke. Patriotism becomes passe.

That's the world we're building now. Businesses take jobs overseas. They don't owe anybody in America anything. They're not members of "communities." Why should they give a ****? Companies figure out ways to hire more people for fewer hours so they don't have to give any workers benefits. Why should they be on the hook to treat employees like anything other than odious overhead? On and on it goes, until a guy has a heart attack, falls down in the aisle of store, and people step over him. The entire leadership structure of our society has sent the message, "We are not responsible." Don't be surprised when the people respond, "Neither are we."

Exactly. QFT

[Garcia Bronco]

Of course it's the same thing. What the firemen did violates the basic concept of citizenship. The fundamental concept is that we are all in it together. That's what makes us stronger. It's why we gather in societies. Together we are stronger than we are as individuals. It's a moral imperative of human society. The firemen violated that imperative. Should the man whose house burned down be driving down the road and see another house on fire, would he be impelled to report it, or just keep driving? See? How many people say, "**** the moral imperative" before there is no society at all? Already the rich have separated themselves out. If they can find a better tax rate elsewhere, why not leave? Corporate America now runs on the motto, "The only responsibility we have is to our stock holders." It's trickle down. Eventually, nobody gives a **** about anybody. The idea of selflessness becomes a joke. Patriotism becomes passe.



We are all in this together, but that doesn't mean that FD should bend-over backwards for informed residents. And they did in the past and the children took advantage of them...so now they, the FD, has to take a harder stance. Morally...those people should have paid the bill. They made decision not to pay...and their house could be the price.

House vs 75 bucks...what would you decide?

[Garcia Bronco]

You don't support running over 2YO's, but you do support letting people's lives be ruined to "teach them a lesson". Significantly less sick, but still sick.

Yes I do. Then maybe they'll learn. And be assured...some people have to learn things the hard way. I don't feel sorry for them.

but to be clear...I would not support letting people burn alive in the house.

[Rohirrim]

Imagine living in that community and your son asks, "Dad? If we didn't pay would they let our house burn down too?"

"Yes, son. That's the world we live in."

[Garcia Bronco]

Imagine living in that community and your son asks, "Dad? If we didn't pay would they let our house burn down too?"

"Yes, son. That's the world we live in."

"But Son, I take care of my responsibilities. That's the lesson I wish to teach you today. I have an obiligation to you and the entire family. So I make sure that's gets paid on-time, every time."

[NUB]

Selfish. Amoral. Some of you have lost your way beyond repair.

[Blart]

PAY THE 75 dollars.


The fire department is a necessity, so man, acting in his own rational self interest, will always pay the optional $75. A = A.

[Garcia Bronco]

Selfish. Amoral. Some of you have lost your way beyond repair.

Agreed:

Residents refuse to pay taxes for their own fire department in rural area
Ask to use city FD
Okay...provided residents pay the 75 bucks for the service
Resident refuse to pay 75 bucks...fire department still responds
Residents still refuse to pay
FD says we will no longer service your area

The selfish residents refuse to pay...they get what they paid for...which is nothing.

[Fedaykin]

"But Son, I take care of my responsibilities. That's the lesson I wish to teach you today. I have an obiligation to you and the entire family. So I make sure that's gets paid on-time, every time."

Your moral obligations to others do not stop with your blood relatives.

Put out the fire, and charge them not just the $75 but a reasonable fee in terms of manpower and equipment. This serves all needs: moral obligations to others, funding for the FD, and learning from the mistake of not paying the regular fee.

It's really simple. Only sociopaths would behave any other way when faced with that serious of a situation. I bet anything the firefighters themselves would unquestionable do that -- it's the sociopaths the elected gumming up the works.

[Blart]

Firefighter speaking out against "pay for spray", as another home burned down yesterday.

<object id="bimvidplayer0" width="320" height="240" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000"> <param value="true" name="allowfullscreen"/> <param value="always" name="allowscriptaccess"/> <param value="high" name="quality"/> <param value="true" name="cachebusting"/> <param value="#000000" name="bgcolor"/> <param name="movie" value="http://swfs.bimvid.com/bimvid_player-3_2_7.swf?x-bim-callletters=WPSD" /> <param value="config=http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/?j=135221543&ref=http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighter-speaks-out-against-pay-for-spray-135221543.html" name="flashvars"/> <embed src="http://swfs.bimvid.com/bimvid_player-3_2_7.swf?x-bim-callletters=WPSD" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="320" height="240" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" cachebusting="true" flashvars="config=http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/?j=135221543&ref=http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Firefighter-speaks-out-against-pay-for-spray-135221543.html" bgcolor="#000000" quality="true"> </embed>
</object>

[That One Guy]

Your moral obligations to others do not stop with your blood relatives.

Put out the fire, and charge them not just the $75 but a reasonable fee in terms of manpower and equipment. This serves all needs: moral obligations to others, funding for the FD, and learning from the mistake of not paying the regular fee.

It's really simple. Only sociopaths would behave any other way when faced with that serious of a situation. I bet anything the firefighters themselves would unquestionable do that -- it's the sociopaths the elected gumming up the works.

OK, now, when you bill that fee, do you only allow one outstanding bill? Or if they have a fire 3 months later and haven't paid their bill, do you just send them another bill?

How long do you keep sending bills? Do you ever cut them off?

[alkemical]

I wonder if insurance carriers there require you to carry "fire insurance". If they do, that's a clear violation of the free market.

Personally i'd like to see the paperwork on insurance in the area. Might be worth it to invest, and not pay the FD.

[Fedaykin]

OK, now, when you bill that fee, do you only allow one outstanding bill? Or if they have a fire 3 months later and haven't paid their bill, do you just send them another bill?

How long do you keep sending bills? Do you ever cut them off?

Oh please. Let's stick to realistic scenarios alright?

[That One Guy]

Of course it's the same thing. What the firemen did violates the basic concept of citizenship. The fundamental concept is that we are all in it together. That's what makes us stronger. It's why we gather in societies. Together we are stronger than we are as individuals. It's a moral imperative of human society. The firemen violated that imperative. Should the man whose house burned down be driving down the road and see another house on fire, would he be impelled to report it, or just keep driving? See? How many people say, "**** the moral imperative" before there is no society at all? Already the rich have separated themselves out. If they can find a better tax rate elsewhere, why not leave? Corporate America now runs on the motto, "The only responsibility we have is to our stock holders." It's trickle down. Eventually, nobody gives a **** about anybody. The idea of selflessness becomes a joke. Patriotism becomes passe.

That's the world we're building now. Businesses take jobs overseas. They don't owe anybody in America anything. They're not members of "communities." Why should they give a ****? Companies figure out ways to hire more people for fewer hours so they don't have to give any workers benefits. Why should they be on the hook to treat employees like anything other than odious overhead? On and on it goes, until a guy has a heart attack, falls down in the aisle of store, and people step over him. The entire leadership structure of our society has sent the message, "We are not responsible." Don't be surprised when the people respond, "Neither are we."

Agreed. Those people, rather than support the services that everyone needs and uses, opted out of paying the small fee. If everyone would chip in, they could probably get the fire department to provide services for an even lesser fee. But, no, they want to keep their $75 and enjoy the fact that they're not getting hit with the property taxes that those in the city are.

Selfish A-holes, if you ask me. All worried about their own $75 and not caring if that money could go to support their local safety services.

[Fedaykin]

Agreed. Those people, rather than support the services that everyone needs and uses, opted out of paying the small fee. If everyone would chip in, they could probably get the fire department to provide services for an even lesser fee. But, no, they want to keep their $75 and enjoy the fact that they're not getting hit with the property taxes that those in the city are.

Selfish A-holes, if you ask me. All worried about their own $75 and not caring if that money could go to support their local safety services.

Yeah, a couple living in a rural area in a house trailer. I'm sure the only reasonable explanation for not paying the fee is they wanted to stick it to the man!

[alkemical]

Agreed. Those people, rather than support the services that everyone needs and uses, opted out of paying the small fee. If everyone would chip in, they could probably get the fire department to provide services for an even lesser fee. But, no, they want to keep their $75 and enjoy the fact that they're not getting hit with the property taxes that those in the city are.

Selfish A-holes, if you ask me. All worried about their own $75 and not caring if that money could go to support their local safety services.

That's socialism.