Home burns while firefighters watch, again

[Verrater]

You're just proving my point. $75 is not a lot of money and this is a business. So what your saying is even though you're to cheap to pay $75 to protect your home and god for bid anybody in it that someone else should risk their life to save your ass. If the people who are burning alive in you home are so important to you that your not willing to pay $75 to protect them then why don't you run into the burning home and save them yourself? Why do you expect others to do it for free because youre too cheap.

Non sequitur. You aren't even making an argument. You are saying "oh they're cheap so they deserve what happened to them."
That is immoral and doesn't even come near addressing my point. There is a difference between morally acceptable and legally acceptable.

Firefighters have no compulsion to risk their lives for non-payment in services rendered. Why is it immoral to not risk your life because somebody refuses to pay you in doing so? If a person wants to go in and assist even when payment is not rendered, then they should be commended, but it shouldn't be a societal compulsion for people to risk their lives for no remuneration. That is greed on the part of the non-paying party to expect another human being to risk their life for you in return for nothing.

You also have no compulsion to save a stranger from drowning (besides your own moral compass) but if you watch someone drown simply because you are not going to be monetarily compensated you are morally defunct. Legally acceptable but still morally defunct.

A doctor and the Hippocratic Oath is completely different than a firefighter. It is night and day, apples & oranges, etc. difference. Such a non-sequitor.

Uhm no. Simply making a statement doesn't make it true. It is the same exact thing and are totally comparable. (see i can do it too)

PS: The firefighters job is to put out the fire, and in cases where the fire is too intense to fight the secondary obligation (with remuneration mind you) is to save the life of the individuals trapped. No individuals in the home, the goal is to save property by putting out the fire. With persons inside, the goal is to still put out the fire, however, the consideration is to also save the life of the individual. Being that I was in the Coast Guard it is pretty much similar in that the goal with no one on board was to save the property if possible, but if someone was on board to save the life and the property if possible, but in either case there was no compulsion to risk your life in doing so. There is a reason it is called going beyond and above the call of service in performing those feats.

Going above and beyond means going above and beyond their regular duties, going into extraordinary circumstances. Their job is risky and they do the job voluntarily with no compulsion. Their job IS the protection of life and property by combating, extinguishing and preventing fires. It is no going "above and beyond" by simply doing their job.

Ergo, I reject your morality. It also doesn't follow that any of us wants anyone to die. That is such a strawman. Would you say I want people to starve because I do not want the State to monopolize agriculture?

I could care less what you reject, the point is what they did was immoral and you don't like being on the side of a person that is clearly acting immorally so you try and defend their actions by twisting a commonly accepted view to suit their actions.

Edit:

And also what about the compulsion to pay $75 when the competition for fighting fires is undoubtedly curtailed by government? Is it right to say "you're the problem because you didn't pay" when that same government agent is preventing the free market and thus extorting you?

 

[jt8025]

I suggest a "pay-as-you-go" plan for those who refuse to pay the fire fee. Therefore, if I as a homeowner choose not to pay the fire fee, then when my home catches fire, the fire department should respond and put out the fire. I, in turn, should be billed the entire cost of the fire department's expenses for their having saved my home. This would be the natural consequence of my own behavior.

What about the cost of the having a crew of firemen to be at the station 24/7 waiting for your house to be on fire. If there is a fire once a month for instance, then the cost of putting out that fire that month is the cost of the crew and building, vehicle, equipment maintaince & depreciation. I would imagine that this is much more than $2000.

 

[Diurdi]

http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/news/local/Home-burns-while-firefighters-watch-again-135069773.html

If I remember correct, from the last time, the firefighters would actually have wanted to help.

But the county has legislation that could cost the firefighters their occupation if they help people who have no paid.

 

[Carole]

The government does not like compettition. There are rules and regulations by a myriad of government agencies including EPA, Homeland Security, Obamacare, and on and on, that prevent just anyone from opening any kind of business.

We have become prisoners in our own country such that no one can simply start a business without dozens and dozens of pieces of paperwork, sometimes hundreds of pieces, and then the fees for this, fees for that. It is all killing small business in America. And destroying the middle class. Keeping those in poverty forever in poverty.

 

[eduardo89]

Property taxes normally go to that institution which people say that we would recess into neanderthals without which is the State monopolization of education and schooling, which is nothing but the production line for bureaucracy and obedience of the population.

I was asking what specifically would stop someone from organizing a volunteer firefighting unit or start a private business that puts out fires for a fee. Are there laws against that?

 

[odamn]

The concept of Personal responsibilty would dictate that,
if don't want to pay for the firefighters to save you and your property,
then you will suffer the consequences.
Case closed.

 

[Blue_Merle]

State and Local taxes go to Police and Fire responses. Everyone is covered and everyone gets a response.

No private fees.

Case closed.

 

[odamn]

State and Local taxes go to Police and Fire responses. Everyone is covered and everyone gets a response.

No private fees.

Case closed.

If you read the article, these ppl are outside
of the fire districts area of responsibilty. That why the fire dept offered the choice
of paying the insurance.

 

[Lucille]

The people who lost their homes live in the county, and don't pay city taxes. The county voters refuse to fund a fire dept. The city FD offered their service for a $75/yr. fee.

 

[Krugerrand]

Non sequitur. You aren't even making an argument. You are saying "oh they're cheap so they deserve what happened to them."
That is immoral and doesn't even come near addressing my point. There is a difference between morally acceptable and legally acceptable.



You also have no compulsion to save a stranger from drowning (besides your own moral compass) but if you watch someone drown simply because you are not going to be monetarily compensated you are morally defunct. Legally acceptable but still morally defunct.



Uhm no. Simply making a statement doesn't make it true. It is the same exact thing and are totally comparable. (see i can do it too)



Going above and beyond means going above and beyond their regular duties, going into extraordinary circumstances. Their job is risky and they do the job voluntarily with no compulsion. Their job IS the protection of life and property by combating, extinguishing and preventing fires. It is no going "above and beyond" by simply doing their job.



I could care less what you reject, the point is what they did was immoral and you don't like being on the side of a person that is clearly acting immorally so you try and defend their actions by twisting a commonly accepted view to suit their actions.

Edit:

And also what about the compulsion to pay $75 when the competition for fighting fires is undoubtedly curtailed by government? Is it right to say "you're the problem because you didn't pay" when that same government agent is preventing the free market and thus extorting you?

I believe part of why they show up is to make sure people are not in danger .. .and that includes in the house. Once it is determined that the house is empty, they will make no effort to save the building.

 

[pcosmar]

The concept of Personal responsibilty would dictate that,
if don't want to pay for the firefighters to save you and your property,
then you will suffer the consequences.
Case closed.

Actually, the concept of Personal responsibility would make every person a member of the "Fire Dept" permanently.
It is a duty to your fellow man.
Just as Law enforcement and Militia are the duty of every person.

 

[Carole]

What about the cost of the having a crew of firemen to be at the station 24/7 waiting for your house to be on fire. If there is a fire once a month for instance, then the cost of putting out that fire that month is the cost of the crew and building, vehicle, equipment maintaince & depreciation. I would imagine that this is much more than $2000.

Yes, that is a great point. And rethinking it I was assuming that most people would simply pay the $75 fire fee. But, of course, they might choose to gamble, so I take your point. I think in my area, when the fees are not paid, or late, there are penalty charges on top of the fees. Naturally, that encourages most to pay their fees on time. Homeowners insurance is required in order to own a home, so maybe the person who suggested the fire fee be paid by the insurance company is the better way to go to insure payment is made, then tacked on to the homeowner's insurance bill. I was thinking that billing the homeowner the entire cost (over the two or three hour period of fighting the fire) would be enough, but the theory has flaws.

My suggestion might simply encourage no one to pay the fee and therefore, the money would not be available to maintain the fire department. So you are more right than I am. Also, against my own argument, what if the people who lost their home cannot then afford to pay the entire bill for putting out their fire? So the real natural consequence of not paying the fee is to let the house burn while protecting the adjoining properties. Cruel, but correct. (I guess I just argued the other side of my own argument and my other self won.)

I demur to your finer point.

 

[Sam I am]

How do you figure that the fire department will bill you only $75 when you might pay a hospital $1500 to merely prescribe you some drugs?

 

[jkr]

If I remember correct, from the last time, the firefighters would actually have wanted to help.

But the county has legislation that could cost the firefighters their occupation if they help people who have no paid.

I
WAS
JUST
FOLLOWING
ORDERS


UBERFAIL

 

[Krugerrand]

Yes, that is a great point. And rethinking it I was assuming that most people would simply pay the $75 fire fee. But, of course, they might choose to gamble, so I take your point. I think in my area, when the fees are not paid, or late, there are penalty charges on top of the fees. Naturally, that encourages most to pay their fees on time. Homeowners insurance is required in order to own a home, so maybe the person who suggested the fire fee be paid by the insurance company is the better way to go to insure paymet is made, then tacked on to the homeowners insurance bill. I was thinking that billing the homeowner the entire cost (over the two or three hour period) of fighting the fire would be enough, but the theory has flaws.

My suggestion might simply encourage no one to pay the fee and therefore, the money would not be available to maintain the fire department. So you are more right than I am. Also, against my own argument, what if the people who lost their home cannot then afford to pay the entire bill for putting out their fire? So the real natural consequence of not paying the fee is to let the house burn while protecting the adjoining properties. Cruel, but correct.

I demur to your finer point.

Homeowner's insurance is not required to own a home. In most cases, a mortgage company will require it, as they are essentially the 'true' owner.

 

[Elwar]

What about the cost of the having a crew of firemen to be at the station 24/7 waiting for your house to be on fire. If there is a fire once a month for instance, then the cost of putting out that fire that month is the cost of the crew and building, vehicle, equipment maintaince & depreciation. I would imagine that this is much more than $2000.

Why do people keep arguing this. I have provided a private fire company solution that ALREADY EXISTS and is doing well providing better fire service at a great price.

And yes, they only charge $2,000 for a full house fire. Or you pay $20 per month. Your choice.

This is not theory. A real world solution exists and works.

 

[jmdrake]

There are what, 10 fires a year?

Please show me a fire department that can run on $750 a year.

You could charge them for the actual cost plus premium after the fact, but then your into court battles to recover the claim etc.

Well if someone got stuck with a $10,000 bill after a fire when a $75 fee would have prevented that then it sends a similar message to everyone that they really need to pay their $75 fee even if the message isn't as stark. Stupified is also write to point out that the city already had to pay money for the firefighters to go out and watch the fire. At least this way the firefighters would have recovered the cost. From a voluntary point of view it should have gone something like this:

Firefighter: Is everyone out of the house?
Homeowner: Yes.
Firefighter: I see you didn't pay your $75 bucks.
Homeowner: That's correct.
Firefighter: Okay. You have a choice. You can sign this contract to reimburse the city $10,000* and we'll do what we can to save the structure, or we can all watch the house burn down. The $10,000 will be assessed on your property taxes at a rate of $2,000 per year for 5 years. If you can't pay the taxes then we'll seize the property and sell it. If what's left of your house isn't worth $10K to your or if you think you can put this out with a garden hose and buckets then don't bother with the contract and we'll just make sure the fire is contained.

* I pulled that $10,000 figure out of thin air. I might be much less.

 

[jmdrake]

Why do people keep arguing this. I have provided a private fire company solution that ALREADY EXISTS and is doing well providing better fire service at a great price.

And yes, they only charge $2,000 for a full house fire. Or you pay $20 per month. Your choice.

This is not theory. A real world solution exists and works.

+rep! This is common sense (which means it's something foreign to government). There are all sorts of situations where you have the choice of making a small monthly payment up front on a large one time payment when needed. The idea that it's "Pay $75 per month or we'll just let your house burn down" as the solution is arbitrary and makes libertarians look silly.

 

[Diurdi]

I
WAS
JUST
FOLLOWING
ORDERS


UBERFAIL

So are you going to go against the orders to save a burning trailerhouse and risk losing your job, as well as if anything happens to you, your insurance won't cover it?

 

[jmdrake]

What about the cost of the having a crew of firemen to be at the station 24/7 waiting for your house to be on fire. If there is a fire once a month for instance, then the cost of putting out that fire that month is the cost of the crew and building, vehicle, equipment maintaince & depreciation. I would imagine that this is much more than $2000.

Irrelevant. The system would work because most people would take the $75 bet to avoid the $2,000 risk. And if that wasn't the case then raise the risk to $10,000. And maybe if there is only 1 fire a month then firefighters could do more than just fight fires. (Most do by the way. I often see 2 or 3 fire trucks pull up to a house that's not of fire but where someone inside has had a heart attack or something. Often 1 ambulance would have been enough).