| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Whitesheep
United States59 Posts
On October 05 2010 14:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote: that seems more like inefficient bureaucracy than practicality you'd think they would have at least saved it for a large fine to compensate for the cost it is a private matter. and it is the practicality of the service. | ||
|
xbankx
703 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 05 2010 14:30 Whitesheep wrote: even in practical terms what they did is still how the service is functioned. no fee, no protection. simple as that. dont try to dig into what is conspicuous. Technically its how it functions, but if you apply the "letter of the law" this strictly, you (as in the firemen, not you) are a gigantic douchebag. Like others have said - just charge him 10x the fee - sends the same damn message. The house being insured isnt a bloody argument -.- What they did is completely inhuman and I hope they can never show their faces in their city again. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote: 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. Yes and no. What are the chances you're going to get your house run down? There's a difference between the message sent "I won't get ANY help," vs "I'll have to pay a lot, but still only a minute fraction of my total cost." One's your entire life savings gone, the other is a large fee, something still less than a DUI (although I'm fully aware you arbitrarily picked $7500 as 100x the regular fee). Because $7500 would simply be gambling that your house doesn't burn down in ~8 years. And if it does burn down around the 8th year, you break even. Economically speaking, I think a lot of people would take that risk that their house doesn't burn, and unless it's in a fire prone area, I'd say the firedept would lose money on it. It'd have to be an obscenely high fee, which the guy might just "say" he'd pay and with no contract or anything I'm not sure how it would legally hold up (literally I have NO idea... anything against nullifying oral contracts made in extreme stress/pressure, etc?). | ||
|
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
| ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On another point, it's ridiculous they'd let the fire burn regardless, surely the risk of spread warrants intervention regardless of the politics involved? I've had a home burn down in a large scale fire before, it strikes me as insanity that they would let this happen. | ||
|
ShadowDrgn
United States2497 Posts
On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote: 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. For $7500, you're better off not paying the $75 fee if the odds of your house burning down are less than 1%, which is a pretty good assumption. They'd probably have to charge more than that. Paying for the fire department through taxes isn't really any different than the system they've already got, except that taxes aren't optional. It wouldn't be appropriate in a densely populated area for obvious reasons, but out in the middle of nowhere, I feel that having a choice is better than being forced to pay for a service you may or may not want. | ||
|
huameng
United States1133 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote: 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. Exactly. Free markets have their limits. :/ FYI, Crassus used to do this (his company probably made fires worse, as well.) | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 05 2010 14:36 xbankx wrote: 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. But not the same as health insurance because in an emergency you can still get treatment even without insurance. | ||
|
foxmeep
Australia2337 Posts
On October 05 2010 14:38 Liquid`Jinro wrote: Technically its how it functions, but if you apply the "letter of the law" this strictly, you (as in the firemen, not you) are a gigantic douchebag. Like others have said - just charge him 10x the fee - sends the same damn message. The house being insured isnt a bloody argument -.- What they did is completely inhuman and I hope they can never show their faces in their city again. And four pets died in the fire too. They could have been saved. Whatever happened to simple human decency... Sure they might have done this by the book, and that can't really be argued. But what they did cannot possibly be justified morally. Edit: flaming removed  | ||
|
skindzer
Chile5114 Posts
Here firefighters are 100% volunteers. And no one has any obligation to give them money whatsoever, still a lot of people do.. In any case the state should always have some kind of obligation regarding fire control. Never tought this could happen in the US cause i assumed they get pay like the police. | ||
|
hixhix
1158 Posts
| ||
|
ISighZ
United States270 Posts
I always thought they were righteous.. | ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote: Or they could have put it out for $7500, saved the man's house, and still sent the same message. Honestly though, this is why funding for the fire department should come from the city, which collects from people through land taxes, rather than each entity collecting separately for each thing. A fire department shouldn't be run like the cable company. No, the fire department shouldn't come from the city because if I decide to build a 100% concrete bunker underground, I shouldn't have to pay to save other people's wood houses or else get locked up with complimentary surprise buttsex. Moreover, saving everyone's houses regardless of if they paid or not is also unreasonable, because then there would be no reason to pay if there were no consequences. Sure, it sucks that his house got burnt down, but if he didnt pay for the service, he shouldn't get the benefits. Furthermore, it wouldn't make sense to charge him 75000 later after the fact because then the fire department is forcing its service on people who never wanted it. Its like the bug exterminator busted down your door and killed a small trail of ants in your kitchen and then charged you 75000 for it. Even if they only charged u the base rate, say 75, it would still be unjust because you never wanted their service in the first place. Maybe you think a 15$ can of bugspray could have done the job and you were just out of your house buying said can. The only logical way for society to operate is through voluntary, non-coercive contracts, where everyone bears the full cost of their actions. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
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. | ||
|
Arevall
Sweden1133 Posts
I can't believe that you think it was right to let his house burn down. Who the hell just watches a house burning down? Sounds like more like organized crime than firefighters on first read-trough. | ||
|
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
On October 05 2010 14:48 hixhix wrote: 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. so then just take the house and let the guy buy/rent it back =/ | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
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. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On October 05 2010 14:45 BlackJack wrote: But not the same as health insurance because in an emergency you can still get treatment even without insurance. At everyone else's expense, which is crappy for everyone else. People who actually pay their insurance have to also pay for uncovered people through taxes because emergency rooms don't turn people away. That is why the health care reform bill is going to make buying health insurance mandatory like car insurance. The uninsured people only hurt the people who are insured whenever they get into trouble. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Monday Night Weeklies
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Shinee
Shine vs EffOrt
GSL
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
KCM Race Survival
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
