|
On October 06 2010 03:43 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote:
its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^ That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad.
|
On October 06 2010 03:49 diehilde wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:43 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote:
its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^ That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system. I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad.
This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire.
The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know.
|
So, this guy is probably going to make a lot of money from this lawsuit.
And sorry, but fighting fires is equatable to fighting crime. It isn't a business and should never run like one.
|
On October 06 2010 03:50 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:49 diehilde wrote:On October 06 2010 03:43 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote:
its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^ That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system. I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad. This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire. The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know.
If you're talking about economic viability charging a 500-1000% premium on the fee that you can pay when your house is ACTUALLY burning sounds pretty economically sound to me.
Your demand for this service too elastic when your house isn't in danger? I'll charge a shit ton more when it becomes inelastic because your house is burning to the ground.
That aside, it's very inhumane to just sit there and watch someone's home burn to the ground. Above is obviously a reasonable choice to act out of financial benefit instincts. Here I'm suggesting being a good social human being and helping another person in need.
He was willing to pay whatever amount for the fire to be put out. There's no excuse for the firefighters to have acted this way
|
On October 06 2010 03:51 overt wrote:
So, this guy is probably going to make a lot of money from this lawsuit.
And sorry, but fighting fires is equatable to fighting crime. It isn't a business and should never run like one.
Can you make an argument for why this is true? It's just an unsupported opinion otherwise.
|
On October 06 2010 03:54 Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:50 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:49 diehilde wrote:On October 06 2010 03:43 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote:
its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^ That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system. I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad. This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire. The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know. If you're talking about economic viability charging a 500-1000% premium on the fee that you can pay when your house is ACTUALLY burning sounds pretty economically sound to me. Your demand for this service too elastic when your house isn't in danger? I'll charge a shit ton more when it becomes inelastic because your house is burning to the ground. That aside, it's very inhumane to just sit there and watch someone's home burn to the ground. Above is obviously a reasonable choice to act out of financial benefit instincts. Here I'm suggesting being a good social human being and helping another person in need. He was willing to pay whatever amount for the fire to be put out. There's no excuse for the firefighters to have acted this way
There are too many legal issues to accept payment when they were there, even at a ridiculous profit. As someone else said, the concept of extortion, damages and so on can come up. It's not a good economic decision to take payment there - the potential from a lawsuit more than covers the amount they'd receive.
As for being a good human being: that doesn't work. If they accept this and take it at a loss, it establishes a precedent that will lead to decreased revenue and thus decreased service / no service at all if the firefighting business loses its profit margin. That would lead to more long-term houses burned down than this single house.
|
On October 06 2010 03:50 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:49 diehilde wrote:On October 06 2010 03:43 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote:
its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^ That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system. I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad. This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire. The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know.
Economic viability? Of running a fire service? You kidding me? Maybe you should factor in the ethic viability for once. On a sidenote, there are arguments in economics that would surely support putting out the fire, same as for paying unemployed ppl a monthly sum. It keeps ppl potent on the market. Letting ten thousands of $ burn to the ground and essentially ruining a family doesnt sound economically viable to me if you look at it from a broader perspective. And thats not even talking about the ethic viability of such practice.
|
On October 06 2010 03:43 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote:
its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^ That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system.
Well, I think some of us do realize this, but nonetheless find it appalling that firefighters stand next to a FRIGGING BURNING HOUSE and don't do anything ... what about this? Sure you can open up an ethical discussion to when exactly what kind of help is ethically warranted or you can open up an economic discussion and say that their pay-for-service business model would not work if they would have helped there ... but honestly ... it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is something wrong with firefighters that opt to not fight a fire, because a service fee was not paid upfront.
On October 06 2010 03:43 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
In this case the "free lunch" is the man getting his house protected from the fire with out paying for the protection services. You stated that these other services do provide a "free lunch" and we went on to point out that it is not free, it just has the cost hidden somewhere else. By stating that services that provide "free lunches" exist you were therefore implying that the fire service could too do it for free, which is very far from the case.
Nobody argues for a free lunch here ... everybody agrees that the guy should have payed after they had safed his house - and a huge amount at that, as far as I am concerned. This is how a meaningful insurance system should be set up for fire protection anyways. But this is also a different matter. The firefighters where there ... they had the means to stop the fire, but didn't.
If I would have stood there with a bucket of water big enough to quench the fire and the man would have begged me for help, and I replied that it is my water, my property, and that I have no obligation to use it to extinguish the fire and even refused any compensation he offered me ... would you have called me a douche?
|
On October 06 2010 03:54 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:51 overt wrote:
So, this guy is probably going to make a lot of money from this lawsuit.
And sorry, but fighting fires is equatable to fighting crime. It isn't a business and should never run like one. Can you make an argument for why this is true? It's just an unsupported opinion otherwise.
Fighting crime, especially property crime, is only necessary to keep people safe and save money. Fighting fire is only necessary to keep people safe and save money. They were already on the scene, it wouldn't have cost them any more money other than the city's water to actually fight the fire. Meanwhile, a home was burnt to the ground causing monetary loss.
Why do police arrest people committing vandalism? Because it causes an economic loss for private business owners and home owners. The same is true of fires. What if someone had been trapped inside of the home? If the firefighters still wouldn't have responded (as they aren't supposed to) they would be guilty of negligence.
If this man has any kind of money left after his home burnt to the ground, he should file a lawsuit. Not necessarily for the money but to get the city laws changed as that's an incredibly immoral policy. South Foulton should be ashamed.
|
On October 06 2010 03:55 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:54 Wire wrote:On October 06 2010 03:50 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:49 diehilde wrote:On October 06 2010 03:43 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote:
its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^ That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system. I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad. This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire. The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know. If you're talking about economic viability charging a 500-1000% premium on the fee that you can pay when your house is ACTUALLY burning sounds pretty economically sound to me. Your demand for this service too elastic when your house isn't in danger? I'll charge a shit ton more when it becomes inelastic because your house is burning to the ground. That aside, it's very inhumane to just sit there and watch someone's home burn to the ground. Above is obviously a reasonable choice to act out of financial benefit instincts. Here I'm suggesting being a good social human being and helping another person in need. He was willing to pay whatever amount for the fire to be put out. There's no excuse for the firefighters to have acted this way There are too many legal issues to accept payment when they were there, even at a ridiculous profit. As someone else said, the concept of extortion, damages and so on can come up. It's not a good economic decision to take payment there - the potential from a lawsuit more than covers the amount they'd receive.
I don't see how the fire department sending a rational bill after saving the house would be a problem, people get similar bills from police departments responding to calls, or much more commonly ambulance rides, when some one is dying they don't ask you to open up your wallet before putting you in the van, they put you in the van and save your life. Bill comes later.
The fire department would be justified in putting out a fire on an unprotected home with or without the consent of the home owner and then charging them afterward because as this story shows, letting the house burn out of control is a threat to nearby houses.
All this over $75, it's disgusting.
|
On October 06 2010 03:59 diehilde wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:50 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:49 diehilde wrote:On October 06 2010 03:43 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote:
its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^ That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system. I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad. This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire. The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know. Economic viability? Of running a fire service? You kidding me? Maybe you should factor in the ethic viability for once. On a sidenote, there are arguments in economics that would surely support putting out the fire, same as for paying unemployed ppl a monthly sum. It keeps ppl potent on the market. Letting ten thousands of $ burn to the ground and essentially ruining a family doesnt sound economically viable to me if you look at it from a broader perspective. And thats not even talking about the ethic viability of such practice.
The system in the article is that of a business. Firefighters have to be paid, and their equipment costs money. I also don't agree with your "it's profitable to do what you normally would do for payment but for free" bit at the end.
Ethics don't factor into this kind of system; an ethical system is a bankrupt system that can't put out any fires.
|
On October 06 2010 04:04 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:55 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:54 Wire wrote:On October 06 2010 03:50 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:49 diehilde wrote:On October 06 2010 03:43 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote:
its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^ That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system. I have realized that its a pay for service system, still its pretty unthinkable for the average european to be like "he didnt pay, his house can burn!" Same goes for shit like "he didnt pay, give him no treatment for his disease!". We realize the concept of paying for a service. But luckily we also realize some concepts of humanism arent all that bad. This has nothing to do with disease. This is about fire. The question of whether or not to put out the fire has to do with the economic viability of running a fire service in which you're willing to put out fires for no payment (or for less than normal payment). It just won't work. Maybe Europeans don't understand the basics of running profitable businesses? I don't know. If you're talking about economic viability charging a 500-1000% premium on the fee that you can pay when your house is ACTUALLY burning sounds pretty economically sound to me. Your demand for this service too elastic when your house isn't in danger? I'll charge a shit ton more when it becomes inelastic because your house is burning to the ground. That aside, it's very inhumane to just sit there and watch someone's home burn to the ground. Above is obviously a reasonable choice to act out of financial benefit instincts. Here I'm suggesting being a good social human being and helping another person in need. He was willing to pay whatever amount for the fire to be put out. There's no excuse for the firefighters to have acted this way There are too many legal issues to accept payment when they were there, even at a ridiculous profit. As someone else said, the concept of extortion, damages and so on can come up. It's not a good economic decision to take payment there - the potential from a lawsuit more than covers the amount they'd receive. I don't see how the fire department sending a rational bill after saving the house would be a problem, people get similar bills from police departments responding to calls, or much more commonly ambulance rides, when some one is dying they don't ask you to open up your wallet before putting you in the van, they put you in the van and save your life. Bill comes later. The fire department would be justified in putting out a fire on an unprotected home with or without the consent of the home owner and then charging them afterward because as this story shows, letting the house burn out of control is a threat to nearby houses. All this over $75, it's disgusting.
The law is not common sense. The fire department would be opening them up to lots of legal action if they accepted the guys payment.
|
|
|
On October 06 2010 04:00 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:43 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:41 diehilde wrote:
its pretty interesting to see how vastly the moral principles differ between US and EU people in threads like these ^^ That's because Europeans work within a system where taxes pay for firefighters. The system in the article, at least for the person's house who burned down, is pay-for-service directly. Thus people judging the system have to take into account the economic viability of running a fireservice in which you put out fires which haven't been paid for, while Europeans ignorantly call the firefighters douches/assholes/whatever because they don't realize its a pay-for-service system. Well, I think some of us do realize this, but nonetheless find it appalling that firefighters stand next to a FRIGGING BURNING HOUSE and don't do anything ... what about this? Sure you can open up an ethical discussion to when exactly what kind of help is ethically warranted or you can open up an economic discussion and say that their pay-for-service business model would not work if they would have helped there ... but honestly ... it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is something wrong with firefighters that opt to not fight a fire, because a service fee was not paid upfront.Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:43 NukeTheBunnys wrote:
In this case the "free lunch" is the man getting his house protected from the fire with out paying for the protection services. You stated that these other services do provide a "free lunch" and we went on to point out that it is not free, it just has the cost hidden somewhere else. By stating that services that provide "free lunches" exist you were therefore implying that the fire service could too do it for free, which is very far from the case.
Nobody argues for a free lunch here ... everybody agrees that the guy should have payed after they had safed his house - and a huge amount at that, as far as I am concerned. This is how a meaningful insurance system should be set up for fire protection anyways. But this is also a different matter. The firefighters where there ... they had the means to stop the fire, but didn't. If I would have stood there with a bucket of water big enough to quench the fire and the man would have begged me for help, and I replied that it is my water, my property, and that I have no obligation to use it to extinguish the fire and even refused any compensation he offered me ... would you have called me a douche?
That's an entirely different discussion. I'm answer the question of "Should the firefighters have put out the fire?", not "Is a privately run firefighting business better than a government-run system?"
|
Ok. To throw some numbers out there.
Lets assume that 1/1000 people will have their house burn down.
The cost is 75 dollars per year (present value).
He pays taxes for 50 years of his life.
Present value of that single call would be 1000 * 75 * 50 ~ 3.75 million dollars. That would be his share of the fire protection service.
Ok. Maybe 1/1000 is too rare. How about 1/100? That still puts it at around 375 000 bucks for his share in this situation.....
Yea. Are you guys sure that his house was worth 375 000 bucks? If it was, it's his own fucking fault for not having proper insurance and protection of it. If not, the better choice in that situation is to let the fucking thing burn down.....
Idiots need protection from themselves..... This should have been a mandatory 75 bucks a year thing, but yea, because it isn't, this type of shit will happen.....
|
On October 06 2010 04:01 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:54 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:51 overt wrote:
So, this guy is probably going to make a lot of money from this lawsuit.
And sorry, but fighting fires is equatable to fighting crime. It isn't a business and should never run like one. Can you make an argument for why this is true? It's just an unsupported opinion otherwise. Fighting crime, especially property crime, is only necessary to keep people safe and save money. Fighting fire is only necessary to keep people safe and save money. They were already on the scene, it wouldn't have cost them any more money other than the city's water to actually fight the fire. Meanwhile, a home was burnt to the ground causing monetary loss. Why do police arrest people committing vandalism? Because it causes an economic loss for private business owners and home owners. The same is true of fires. What if someone had been trapped inside of the home? If the firefighters still wouldn't have responded (as they aren't supposed to) they would be guilty of negligence. If this man has any kind of money left after his home burnt to the ground, he should file a lawsuit. Not necessarily for the money but to get the city laws changed as that's an incredibly immoral policy. South Foulton should be ashamed.
You don't get it: this is what people want. This is the United States, where having to pay for government fire protection is socialism and an affront to freedom. The guy probably voted in this exact system.
|
On October 06 2010 04:01 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 03:54 cz wrote:On October 06 2010 03:51 overt wrote:
So, this guy is probably going to make a lot of money from this lawsuit.
And sorry, but fighting fires is equatable to fighting crime. It isn't a business and should never run like one. Can you make an argument for why this is true? It's just an unsupported opinion otherwise. Fighting crime, especially property crime, is only necessary to keep people safe and save money. Fighting fire is only necessary to keep people safe and save money. They were already on the scene, it wouldn't have cost them any more money other than the city's water to actually fight the fire. Meanwhile, a home was burnt to the ground causing monetary loss.
Why do police arrest people committing vandalism? Because it causes an economic loss for private business owners and home owners. The same is true of fires. What if someone had been trapped inside of the home? If the firefighters still wouldn't have responded (as they aren't supposed to) they would be guilty of negligence.If this man has any kind of money left after his home burnt to the ground, he should file a lawsuit. Not necessarily for the money but to get the city laws changed as that's an incredibly immoral policy. South Foulton should be ashamed.
People are arrested for vandalism because they are breaking the law. There was also nobody trapped within the home, so the "what ifs" don't matter. And as I stated, there are long term implications to setting a precedent here. Everything is connected.
|
you can't buy storm insurance right when there's a hurricane in your gulf.
same principle here.
i guess the us actually has a sense of personal responsibility for one's well-being. much like the self-made man.
|
I find it amusing that some of the comfy couch moral white knights advocate violence against the firefighters for doing their job an abiding by the laws and policies of their elected officials.
As for comparing police to firefighters, the same issues apply. If a police officer on duty is outside his jurisdiction and performs and arrest because he felt it was the right thingto do, the criminal will go free due to unlawful arrest and the officer would be disciplined or fired for fucking it up. Govenment agents only have power to act within their jurisdiction. If that house was outside the city and he wasn't part of the service opt-in program he was out of their jurisdiction and fighting that fire would've opened them up to a legal shitstorm and millions in liability.
I believe a lot of basi services like firefighting should be provided by all and paid for wih taxes. However, under the system where this event occurred the firefighters were following the laws and policies of their elected officials. If you want someone to blame, blame all the citizens who vote in Republicans that get elected by promising to cut social services along with taxes because they hate government intervention in anything.
|
The system in place with firefighting running on fees is downright insane. It's very fucked up to want a society where houses are burned down with firefighters watching it happen. But once you have that nutso system in place what else can you do but adhere to it? The only thing worse than having firefighting running on fees is having it not run at all something which will happen if fees are not paid. It's gross but the only solution to me is to change the system and not this individual happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
