Firefighters Watch As House Burns Down

[Madeline]

So, let me get this straight: Folks are saying that it's OK to pay for fire protection only when your house is on fire, like this moron in the article.

And, how do the fire trucks get paid for? How do the firefighters eat and feed their families?

What sort of stupidity flows through this thread?

No Si. Doing so does not fund the carrying costs of having a fire department to begin with...the salaries of firemen, the maintenance of fire houses, etc. It's an every day expense and should be funded by all who benefit -- through taxation.

BTW, if in year 1 300 homeowners paid the fee but in year 3 only 100 did, does the fee go up by 300% or not? I suspect there is no rational relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of maintaining a fire service....even more evidence this fee was asinine, easily misunderstood and could not be the pre-requisite in an emergency.

I still feel sorriest for the firefighters.

 

[Paulie]

I wonder if kids or anyone else had been trapped in the house if the firefighters would have left them to burn.

What do you think?

It would depend on the firefighters. Liberals would definitely save the kids. Conservatives might. Libertarians...no way.

This libertarian defaults to the "right to life".

If a person's life was in danger in the house, the situation changes.

Standing there watching a house burn while someone is confirmed to be burning to death inside is deprivation of the right to life, and in my book, a crime.

I'll rep you once a day if you can find one single libertarian on here who would advocate letting a person burn to death inside the house.

 

[Si modo]

So, let me get this straight: Folks are saying that it's OK to pay for fire protection only when your house is on fire, like this moron in the article.

And, how do the fire trucks get paid for? How do the firefighters eat and feed their families?

What sort of stupidity flows through this thread?

No Si. Doing so does not fund the carrying costs of having a fire department to begin with...the salaries of firemen, the maintenance of fire houses, etc. It's an every day expense and should be funded by all who benefit -- through taxation.

...

No shit.

That's why they are asked to pay for the service. They don't pay, no service. If their house catches fire, too bad for them and their cheap decision.

 

[del]

Fringe today is best described by the rug being rolled into a tube. The far left and the far right meet at the fringe, and the loudest voices today are from the finge which before the move was on the far right edge.
So Del, respond to the analogy of healthcare. If he had chosen not to pay for a required public option and went to the local hospital for treatment of a serious infectious disease, should he be treated or sent away. Not a perfect example, but one which deserves consideration, imo.

he should be quarantined and billed for the cost.

Serious consideration, del. Oh well, I have honey dues do. I really never expect serious debate anyway.

the government is obligated to protect the rest of the pop from this idiot's decision not to pay.

the govt is not obligated to nurse him back to health.

i'm sorry that your analogy didn't work out the way you wanted it to.

 

[Cal]

Middle class people don't always have an extra $75 on hand. What if it was either pay for a childs braces or this fee?
I just don't get your logic that just because someone didn't pay a fee, we should let their house burn down. What a fucked up mentality.

 

[Madeline]

So, let me get this straight: Folks are saying that it's OK to pay for fire protection only when your house is on fire, like this moron in the article.

And, how do the fire trucks get paid for? How do the firefighters eat and feed their families?

What sort of stupidity flows through this thread?

No Si. Doing so does not fund the carrying costs of having a fire department to begin with...the salaries of firemen, the maintenance of fire houses, etc. It's an every day expense and should be funded by all who benefit -- through taxation.

...

No shit.

That's why they are asked to pay for the service. They don't pay, no service. If their house catches fire, too bad for them and their cheap decision.

This ignores my interest in my neighbor's property, Si. It ignores the risk to my property if his burns. It violates the first principle of fire insurance -- risk spreading -- and it drives up the cost of carrying a fire department for the prudent unfairly.

In short, this is a monumentally stupid way to approach local government.

 

[Ravi]

What do you think?

It would depend on the firefighters. Liberals would definitely save the kids. Conservatives might. Libertarians...no way.

This libertarian defaults to the "right to life".

If a person's life was in danger in the house, the situation changes.

Standing there watching a house burn while someone is confirmed to be burning to death inside is deprivation of the right to life, and in my book, a crime.

I'll rep you once a day if you can find one single libertarian on here who would advocate letting a person burn to death inside the house.

A right to life doesn't equate forcing someone to save a life.

 

[Si modo]

Middle class people don't always have an extra $75 on hand. What if it was either pay for a childs braces or this fee?
I just don't get your logic that just because someone didn't pay a fee, we should let their house burn down. What a fucked up mentality.

It's $75/year. If they can't afford that, they should not be homeowners. Rent.

 

[Spoonman]

Middle class people don't always have an extra $75 on hand. What if it was either pay for a childs braces or this fee?
I just don't get your logic that just because someone didn't pay a fee, we should let their house burn down. What a fucked up mentality.

No, but they will still have a mandatory charge for Obama's National healthcare plan.

 

[Si modo]

No Si. Doing so does not fund the carrying costs of having a fire department to begin with...the salaries of firemen, the maintenance of fire houses, etc. It's an every day expense and should be funded by all who benefit -- through taxation.

...

No shit.

That's why they are asked to pay for the service. They don't pay, no service. If their house catches fire, too bad for them and their cheap decision.

This ignores my interest in my neighbor's property, Si. It ignores the risk to my property if his burns. It violates the first principle of fire insurance -- risk spreading -- and it drives up the cost of carrying a fire department for the prudent unfairly.

In short, this is a monumentally stupid way to approach local government.

Then, if his/her property burns, you better hope you paid your $75.

It's not complicated.

 

[California Girl]

Middle class people don't always have an extra $75 on hand. What if it was either pay for a childs braces or this fee?
I just don't get your logic that just because someone didn't pay a fee, we should let their house burn down. What a fucked up mentality.

He could have moved to an area where the service is paid through taxes. He chose to live there, no one made him. And, if it was a priority, he'd have found the money. Again, Lefty, please explain why you think some people should pay and others should not. And don't put the lives of any strawmen at risk to make your argument.... We don't want any more fires.

 

[Madeline]

It would depend on the firefighters. Liberals would definitely save the kids. Conservatives might. Libertarians...no way.

This libertarian defaults to the "right to life".

If a person's life was in danger in the house, the situation changes.

Standing there watching a house burn while someone is confirmed to be burning to death inside is deprivation of the right to life, and in my book, a crime.

I'll rep you once a day if you can find one single libertarian on here who would advocate letting a person burn to death inside the house.

A right to life doesn't equate forcing someone to save a life.

I cannot show up in full regalia with a complement of firefighters and still claim I owed no duty to rescue, Ravi. If someone had been killed while they stood idly by, they'd be facing manslaughter charges.

 

[del]

So, let me get this straight: Folks are saying that it's OK to pay for fire protection only when your house is on fire, like this moron in the article.

And, how do the fire trucks get paid for? How do the firefighters eat and feed their families?

What sort of stupidity flows through this thread?

No Si. Doing so does not fund the carrying costs of having a fire department to begin with...the salaries of firemen, the maintenance of fire houses, etc. It's an every day expense and should be funded by all who benefit -- through taxation.

BTW, if in year 1 300 homeowners paid the fee but in year 3 only 100 did, does the fee go up by 300% or not? I suspect there is no rational relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of maintaining a fire service....even more evidence this fee was asinine, easily misunderstood and could not be the pre-requisite in an emergency.

I still feel sorriest for the firefighters.

the city fire dept is primarily funded by the city via taxes.

county residents who want coverage from the city fire dept are charged $75. the city is not responsible for residents of the county.

only an idiot would find this concept difficult to understand.

 

[Spoonman]

Middle class people don't always have an extra $75 on hand. What if it was either pay for a childs braces or this fee?
I just don't get your logic that just because someone didn't pay a fee, we should let their house burn down. What a fucked up mentality.

He could have moved to an area where the service is paid through taxes. He chose to live there, no one made him. And, if it was a priority, he'd have found the money. Again, Lefty, please explain why you think some people should pay and others should not. And don't put the lives of any strawmen at risk to make your argument.... We don't want any more fires.

The tin man has the strawmans back. I hear.

 

[Ravi]

This libertarian defaults to the "right to life".

If a person's life was in danger in the house, the situation changes.

Standing there watching a house burn while someone is confirmed to be burning to death inside is deprivation of the right to life, and in my book, a crime.

I'll rep you once a day if you can find one single libertarian on here who would advocate letting a person burn to death inside the house.

A right to life doesn't equate forcing someone to save a life.

I cannot show up in full regalia with a complement of firefighters and still claim I owed no duty to rescue, Ravi. If someone had been killed while they stood idly by, they'd be facing manslaughter charges.

Yep...not sure how it can be justified that they just stood there and watched a house burn, either.

Firefighters are for the most part very giving people...most of them go to other states if called upon for help.

 

[xotoxi]

All of the fire trucks should be stocked with marshmallows, graham crackers, and chocolate, just in case they get called to stand by at a property where the owner didn't pay.

 

[Paulie]

It would depend on the firefighters. Liberals would definitely save the kids. Conservatives might. Libertarians...no way.

This libertarian defaults to the "right to life".

If a person's life was in danger in the house, the situation changes.

Standing there watching a house burn while someone is confirmed to be burning to death inside is deprivation of the right to life, and in my book, a crime.

I'll rep you once a day if you can find one single libertarian on here who would advocate letting a person burn to death inside the house.

A right to life doesn't equate forcing someone to save a life.

You may be right.

But this is where I would separate from my original opinion on this matter.

The house is just a house. There's no obligation to save property. Someone's life is a different story though.

I would certainly hope that a life wasn't left to expire over a "principle" of $75.

 

[USAMomma]

Well, at least there wasn't a human being inside that may have needed assistance in getting out.

At that point, could there be murder charges pending against the unresponsive firefighters if they still refused to assist?

Wait until you call 911 and the operator does not ask you about anything about the emergency except for your proof of insurance number.

Kind of like some customer service people,
"May I be haveeng you account number? Needing your account number first.."

 

[Cal]

Middle class people don't always have an extra $75 on hand. What if it was either pay for a childs braces or this fee?
I just don't get your logic that just because someone didn't pay a fee, we should let their house burn down. What a fucked up mentality.

It's $75/year. If they can't afford that, they should not be homeowners. Rent.

A lot of people only have money for bills, food, and their health expenses (if that much).. I know a ton of people who couldn't spare an extra $75 a year. Everyone doesn't have money running out their ears.

 

[rightwinger]

The very concept of pay as you go fire protection is laughable