|
Aren't they fighting wars all over the world for human rights? Isn't it pretty fucking inhuman to sit and watch. I can't understand how they can even think, Hey he didn't pay the fee, its not our problem" or the more likely "Let's teach those nonpaying scroungers a lesson"
76.5% americans are christians. love thy neighbor apparently is just a saying.
"Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars.
|
The real heroes aren't Superman or Batman. The real heroes are the firef-
|
On October 05 2010 19:00 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 18:58 jtype wrote:On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge. or... most countries outside of the US... LOL you are terrible. excellent exit attempt by trying to turn this into a US vs the world flamefest. A+ effort but 0/10
That honestly isn't/wasn't my intention at all. I'm not trying to turn this into a US vs the world argument, but I am slightly concerned that it already is one, as I'm not sure if a few people's motivations for defending these fire-fighters is based on a 'US vs the world' mentality.
The fact that you saw my comment as an attempt to do that only makes me wonder even more.
|
On October 05 2010 19:02 jtype wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 19:00 HeavOnEarth wrote:On October 05 2010 18:58 jtype wrote:On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge. or... most countries outside of the US... no one is saying the policy is good, but with the current policy the US has, this is the course of action the fire department has to take. See, what you said there actually makes sense to me, but it seems like there are a few people here quite vehemently defending the policy.
perhaps you misinterpreted their posts?
|
The people who don't understand why you would let the house burn rather than pay a larger fine at the time of the burning don't understand what it costs. You are paying for 24 hour service of atleast 5 (or however many it requires) firefighters for the entire duration of its existence until it puts out your fire, at a national average of $32,000 per person. Then add in the cost of a fire truck, it's maintenance, and the other necessities, I highly doubt anyone will be paying over $200,000 when their house catches on fire (and that's just per year).
Even if you paid the cost from the perspective of only the first person who's house catches fire has to pay large fine and then everyone after that pays the cost from that point forward, if they instead choose not to pay this outrageous sum, then the house burns down (or is saved for free), and the cost would be passed onto the second person who's house catches fire. And this entire time the fire department is racking up debt. In the case of paying when they come, there really are only two options: you're absurdly rich and can pay, or you can't pay. Enough can't pays happen, and then no one has firefighters (even the rich).
On October 05 2010 18:47 Monsen wrote:
America, fuck yeah!
Wouldn't have happened under evil, satanic SOCIALISM btw.
I'm sure that family is glad to have the FREEDOM not to pay the firefighters.
Remind me how Germany's National Socialist Movement improved society again. I think that one house burning down is the most of a non-socialist societies worries.
|
On October 05 2010 19:07 HeavOnEarth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 19:02 jtype wrote:On October 05 2010 19:00 HeavOnEarth wrote:On October 05 2010 18:58 jtype wrote:On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge. or... most countries outside of the US... no one is saying the policy is good, but with the current policy the US has, this is the course of action the fire department has to take. See, what you said there actually makes sense to me, but it seems like there are a few people here quite vehemently defending the policy. perhaps you misinterpreted their posts?
Perhaps you're right. I'd be happy if that was the case.
|
On October 05 2010 19:08 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 18:47 Monsen wrote:
America, fuck yeah!
Wouldn't have happened under evil, satanic SOCIALISM btw.
I'm sure that family is glad to have the FREEDOM not to pay the firefighters. Remind me how Germany's National Socialist Movement improved society again. I think that one house burning down is the most of a non-socialist societies worries.
No one is mentioning NATIONAL Socialism here, that's an entirely different thing, European countries operate on a mixture of capitalism and socialism (meaning they run the same capitalist economy but the government provides more services than in the US). Over here fire brigades are a "free" service (some of your tax money goes towards them), you don't have to pay any monthly fee or give them any money at all if they save your house from burning down, just the same way that you don't have to pay for the police or ambulance services.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I don't get why they didn't save the house and then charge a outrageous amount because of no fee...
|
On October 05 2010 19:12 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 19:08 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On October 05 2010 18:47 Monsen wrote:
America, fuck yeah!
Wouldn't have happened under evil, satanic SOCIALISM btw.
I'm sure that family is glad to have the FREEDOM not to pay the firefighters. Remind me how Germany's National Socialist Movement improved society again. I think that one house burning down is the most of a non-socialist societies worries. No one is mentioning NATIONAL Socialism here, that's an entirely different thing, European countries operate on a mixture of capitalism and socialism (meaning they run the same capitalist economy but the government provides more services than in the US). Over here fire brigades are a "free" service (some of your tax money goes towards them), you don't have to pay any monthly fee or give them any money at all if they save your house from burning down, just the same way that you don't have to pay for the police or ambulance services.
I gotta admit I was awed by the fact the US has this kind of mechanism to pay for firefighters, hehe, US, always givin us lulz
|
On October 05 2010 14:54 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:50 Railxp wrote:
The only logical way for society to operate is through voluntary, non-coercive contracts, where everyone bears the full cost of their actions. Not only does this society not exist (nor has it ever existed), but you haven't stated (nor will you ever be able to) what prevents people from oppressing each other. Logic doesn't. Free market fire department would raise the price of putting out a fire until they reach the threshhold of what the "customer" is willing to pay. There is no competition for that service in your voluntary, non-coercive world because a monopoly is eventually going to control all the resources needed to extinguish fires. If you're going to abandon publicly owned firehouses, the next obvious step is police forces.
First of all, just because something hasn't existed, doesnt mean it will not exist. For the longest time, slavery was common, and people would say "WELL WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ALL MAH KOTTON WITHOUT SLAVES? U WILL KILL THE COTTON INDUSTRYYY!!" Well slavery is a moral issue that is just wrong. We will learn how to cope in a society without slavery after. Second, actually something like this HAS existed before. Iceland has had an anarchic society that lasted peacefully for 300 years. Thats around 4-6 generations. Further info on wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities. "IT NEVAR EXISTED BEFORRR!!" is not a valid argument.
What prevents people from oppressing each other? What makes you think you arn't already oppressed as is? Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. You are currently either oppressing the minority, or are being oppressed already. You are being oppressed to pay for a war you do not favor. Even if you are pro-war, whatever you do not agree with the government doing, you still have to pay for it. How do you logically stop oppression? Level the whole playing field and diffuse the power. Dont let anyone else decide for you how you live, and dont decide for others how they should live. If a guy's house got burnt down, the problem is between him and the fire department. You cant then decide for everyone else that saving it after the fact is agreeable. Even with the ER saving people, there are patients who would dispute it and argue for the right of suicide, so a house would raise even more disputes.
I dont understand what you mean by "Logic Doesn't ?"
You argue against a monopoly on fire-control. And yet you blindingly miss the fact that the EXISTING program is a monopoly. And look at what this monopoly got you? You cannot argue against a monopoly and be in favor for a monopoly at the same time.
EVEN IF convergence into monopoly is inevitable, which i would dispute, at least you get a chance as a customer to object to or opt out for a better alternative. Also, without government protection, a monopoly won't exist. If they didnt make starting your own fire department illegal, there would be nothing to stop you from driving your own water tank around town to try to beat them to the fire and then advertise your cheaper alternative to people. And if you did and were allowed to do that, I'm certain you would have saved this guy's house and he would be your lifelong customer now. A monopoly can't possibly control all the resources for this. You are saying one company will dominate all the water in the world and not let anyone have any unless they approve? Either it will have to be dirt cheap, or they will be torn down by people like you and me who won't accept such treatment. And without EVERYONE in the country paying for their security/mob force, they wont be able to do squat about the people who object. As is, the US government which takes roughly 15-30% of everyone's income, has military bases all over the world, and is regarded as the sole super-power in the world, and yet cannot even have a competent crime force to protect its own capital from being ravaged by crimes.
Also, private police forces already exist. Many college campuses have their own police. Many banks have their own guards. Many residencies have their own security force. All of these operate better, are less corrupt, and have faster reaction time than any state police. All of these strive to operate on prevention rather than after-the-fact intervention.
-----
Edit:
After reading the wiki a little more:
Medieval Iceland had no bureaucrats, no taxes, no police, and no army. … Of the normal functions of governments elsewhere, some did not exist in Iceland, and others were privatized, including fire-fighting, criminal prosecutions and executions, and care of the poor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities#cite_note-1
So even if you dispute the rest of my arguments, you will at least have to cede to me your first point that private fire-fighting has never existed. :p
I'm not saying that unicorns and rainbows follow from such a society, just that each individual person would have a lot more influence on their own lives instead of the current system.
|
That is NOT the policy of the US. Most everywhere firefighting service is paid for by compulsory taxes you don't get to opt-out of. Its certainly the case where I live in a rural, conservative state/county/city. Even if the firefighters themselves are volunteers, the trucks, training, call stations etc. are paid by the taxes. In cities, it pretty much has to be mandatory because if house A is 10 feet from house B and one catches fire, the other will as well. There's no feasible way to let the house of someone who opted-out to burn down without it spreading incurring massive risk. If the man's house were in a more densely populated area, I have no doubt that government would have found a way to mandate his participation in fire protection via taxes. In this instance, though, because the man lived out in the country, outside the city limits and in a county that had no county-wide fire protection (closest was the city of South Fulton, pop 2500) he couldn't be taxed by the city to provide the fire service. Therefore, the city offered him the ability to opt-in for 75$/year. It seems to me that the problem is that fire protection was not being provided at a level of government that could levy taxes on the man: the county.
|
On October 05 2010 19:18 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 19:12 jello_biafra wrote:On October 05 2010 19:08 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On October 05 2010 18:47 Monsen wrote:
America, fuck yeah!
Wouldn't have happened under evil, satanic SOCIALISM btw.
I'm sure that family is glad to have the FREEDOM not to pay the firefighters. Remind me how Germany's National Socialist Movement improved society again. I think that one house burning down is the most of a non-socialist societies worries. No one is mentioning NATIONAL Socialism here, that's an entirely different thing, European countries operate on a mixture of capitalism and socialism (meaning they run the same capitalist economy but the government provides more services than in the US). Over here fire brigades are a "free" service (some of your tax money goes towards them), you don't have to pay any monthly fee or give them any money at all if they save your house from burning down, just the same way that you don't have to pay for the police or ambulance services. I gotta admit I was awed by the fact the US has this kind of mechanism to pay for firefighters, hehe, US, always givin us lulz
Residents of cities are taxed to fund their local fire dept. he was not within the city boundaries and did not have to pay the local tax. he was still, however, given the chance to pay for the service and chose not to.
|
This is just soooo wrong, can't find any words for it.
It was obvious that this happened in the US. You guys over there really need to work on your social systems.
|
Funny people in this thread, trying to defend their broke insane capitalistic system.
I don't doubt that if there was someone trapped inside they would have jumped in to try to save them if at all possible, but hey you don't pay the piper he'll fuck you up.
They called 7 times, they did not react, how did they know noone was trapped inside?
Personal responsibility is important that guy choose not to pay the fee and he suffered the consequences. Same with health insurance of many young people in US. I don't care much. I mean as long as the fire department knew that there was no people trapped inside then its fine.
Thats so wrong in itself, you think people should get rescued from fires, but not from cureable deseases if they are from a poor family?
Deeper issue is why is the fire department run like this? By that I mean, why is funding for fire department being paid for out of pocket and not part of the city's expenses? Surely such basic civic protection should be paid for by the government through taxes and not "pay if you want/can otherwise we'll watch your house burn down".
- because they live to far outside the city
Finally, two posters understand economic. If you can pay a large amount of money to save your house at any time without a monthly fee, then the majority of people will choose that option and the fire department is completely fucked.
-why? because once a year a house on the landside of the city catches fire and they can't found themselves with taxes they already got + a large amount for the gas spent to travel farther out of town? that what so called economics call economy is crime. simply crime (mafia blackmales as well)
Moreover, saving everyone's houses regardless of if they paid or not is also unreasonable, because then there would be no reason to pay if there were no consequences. Sure, it sucks that his house got burnt down, but if he didnt pay for the service, he shouldn't get the benefits.
Furthermore, it wouldn't make sense to charge him 75000 later after the fact because then the fire department is forcing its service on people who never wanted it. Its like the bug exterminator busted down your door and killed a small trail of ants in your kitchen and then charged you 75000 for it. Even if they only charged u the base rate, say 75, it would still be unjust because you never wanted their service in the first place. Maybe you think a 15$ can of bugspray could have done the job and you were just out of your house buying said can.
1. totally unreasonable to put out a fire as firefighters ,yes
2. They called, they wanted help. I don't think firefighters can watch every house everytime and instantly fight the fires -> your argument is invalid
If the firefighters put out the fire or tried to take money from the man for doing it, they could've all lost their jobs or maybe even went to jail for extortion, no matter the intention.
So you think that accepting a system where you get sent to jail for helping other people for free is justification to not do so, you are weak.
If you're going to abandon publicly owned firehouses, the next obvious step is police forces.
actually police/jails are already often replaced by private services, wellcome to today.
Welcome to the real world where nothing is either black or white. Basically, we dont have enough resource to make everything perfect, so we go with decisions with the best expected/guestimated outcome.
x , they had the recourcess, and we go with the decisions those who own something make to own more - I would argue if this is the best outcome.
You can't pay $250 after you crash your car to get insurance to fix $10,000 in repair costs because that's cheating the system, and the pool of money that the cost of repairs is coming from is supposed to be filled in part by your monthly payments. It's the same idea here.
I get the feeling you live in a car, don't you?
actually wow, at first i was like jesus these guys are assholes, but it makes a lot of sense now why they let this guys house burn down.
Actually they're still assholes but just not as retarded as i thought they were.
Yeah, they arn't retarded assholes, they are cruel inhuman assholes who choosed the wrong profession.
Remember that thread arguing for Anarcho Capitalism?
you just won the thread, both of them, really <3
|
On October 05 2010 18:55 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Seriously if you don't think this was the correct decision by the fire department you are living in a fantasy world with infinite money and social services that are free of charge.
Cost of putting out the fire /= infinite. That's not a good comparison.
In a world where people's lives, homes, pets, belongings, etc. don't matter, then yes, the fire department made the right decision.
The guy should have paid. No one's arguing that. Does that mean he deserves to watch as his house burns down along with everything he owns while his pets are still trapped inside as well? I find it hard to believe that people are saying, "yes."
Was it a fiscally appropriate decision? Sure. However, from a moral standpoint, it's "evil" what happened there.
It is fiscally more responsible for us to simply let people die who cannot afford healthcare, is it not? However, again, from a moral standpoint, that does not make it the right choice.
|
On October 05 2010 19:04 goldfishs wrote:
"Nobody is blaming the fire fighters, blame the management they are just doing their jobs" BULLOCKS! they can't roll over there, put out the fire next door and leave and expect us to accept that. Maybe, and I mean maybe if they hadn't pulled out at all. I would had accepted that because there is consequenses for pulling out against orders and it might be next to impossible for one man to rally them. But at the scene ready to go and they just leave?
I've always been against hanging people out but if anyone those firemen desserves it. They ruined a familys life for 75 dollars.
I'm sorry, this is where I draw the line. The firefighters were following orders, there is a chain of command for a reason, and property damage isn't enough to countermand an order like that. I have no doubt that if there was anyone inside they would have gone in after them. There wasn't because it took two hours for the fire to spread from the barrels (which I'm sure didn't spontaneously combust) to the house. Hell, the whole thing would have been solved if the fire fighters had been allowed to go out and put out the fire before it reached the neighbor's field in the first place. House saved, neighbor's field never caught fire, end of story. Granted, if the homeowner had paid the fee then there wouldn't be this issue in the first place either.
The fault lies entirely at the feet of the county government, their policy (law really) is that the municipalities in the county provide fire services and if the people in the non incorporated portions of the county want them they need to pay a $75 fee. A fee that city residents pay through taxes. This should have been taken years ago (the news report states another incident in 2008) but the county commissioner's did not act.
Not surprisingly, there is now a push for a county wide fire tax to put this issue to bed. Now, I'm a firm get the government out of our lives type but government's exist for a few reasons and public safety is one of them. This is something the taxpayers should have to pay for and hopefully will in the future in this county.
Should this house have burned down? No. Is it the fault of the Fire Fighters? Hell no
|
On October 05 2010 18:35 HeavOnEarth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 18:27 willeesmalls wrote:
Workable solution:
Treat it like what it is-a private company. Charge the homeowner whatever it cost to put out the fire. Include fixed costs and variable costs, including costs of capital.
So long as the price is acceptable to the homeowner, everybody wins. If not, then unfortunately his house will burn. Just because I have something you need, does not mean I am obligated to give it to you. Putting out fires costs resources.
People who are saying the firefighters should have put out the fire regardless aren't thinking very clearly. If that were the case, this type of fire insurance would not exist - meaning there will be no firefighters.
The only condition that need be met is that the firefighters as a group will continue to exist. Fires don't come up consistently is the issue here. if there is a month with few to little fies- the department gets no money, and has to lay off workers, cut hours, cut supplies. Except, in a business that is 24/7, and protects against something that could lead to death, you need full time workers, and the best equipment. Heres an example why this wouldnt work lets say in the summer , firefighters account for 70% of their business. and in the off seasons(that isn't summer) - firefighters do 30% of their business. If people plan around it, this business model may work However, due to variance, sometimes it may be 0-10% in the winter and sadly, you need at least 20% to maintain the minimum amount of workers. Spiral and crash and burn. goes teh business model
You can always try to model the occurrences of fire and create a plan for maximal coverage. If the plan is infeasible (requires more resources than it can get in return), there will simply be no firefighters.
Obviously the best way to do this is to socialize firefighting. But given that firefighting is privatized, at least partially in this situation - the expectation for the firefighters to be charitable is unrealistic.
There are limits in socialist organization as well. There are occasions in southern california where many forests and houses burn because firefighting resources were insufficient to deal with the fire quickly. Does it make sense to have those resources on standby?
Again it's a question of practicality. In this specific situation, the private group of firefighters decided it was impractical to fight that fire. Given their occupation, I highly doubt they were sneering at the family as the house burned.
|
On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:21 FabledIntegral wrote:
Honestly... I kinda agree. Otherwise it just goes to show you can not pay the fee and still get the protection when the fire happens. Or they could have put it out for $7500, saved the man's house, and still sent the same message. Honestly though, this is why funding for the fire department should come from the city, which collects from people through land taxes, rather than each entity collecting separately for each thing. A fire department shouldn't be run like the cable company.
This. I felt so disgusted yesterday when I read this. The action of the Firefighters is wrong on so many levels I don't even want to go into it. I can't even bring myself to reading the rest of the comments.
I just hope all involved firefighters will be fired or at least suspended without pay and the victim will be fully compensated.
|
lol reminds me of that story of some rich Roman dude who had all the teh slaves with buckets and whenever there was a fire he would get over there and wouldn't put out the fire unless the owner paid up. Oh and he also made the neighbors pay up too as their homes were in danger as well. Only difference is, this Roman guy actually did eventually put out the fires when the owners offered a good price and had paid.
Eventually he was killed when some badder dudes poured molten silver down his throat to satisfy his "lust for money".
|
On October 05 2010 19:34 Golden Ghost wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:21 FabledIntegral wrote:
Honestly... I kinda agree. Otherwise it just goes to show you can not pay the fee and still get the protection when the fire happens. Or they could have put it out for $7500, saved the man's house, and still sent the same message. Honestly though, this is why funding for the fire department should come from the city, which collects from people through land taxes, rather than each entity collecting separately for each thing. A fire department shouldn't be run like the cable company. This. I felt so disgusted yesterday when I read this. The action of the Firefighters is wrong on so many levels I don't even want to go into it. I can't even bring myself to reading the rest of the comments. I just hope all involved firefighters will be fired or at least suspended without pay and the victim will be fully compensated.
Except the fire department was funded from the city. This isn't the case of the fire fighter's being contracted out to a private company they are municipal workers.
The property was not in city limits.
The service to rural areas is one provided by the city fire department for a fee (that city residents already pay for in their taxes and this family did not). So because he doesn't live in the city he shouldn't have to pay for a service that city property owners do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6520/1265320839939.jpg)
