EPTFirefighters let house burn due no fee payment - Page 22
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
| ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
Firefighters can only act within the bounds set by their politician bosses. | ||
|
Rasva_Pallo
Finland126 Posts
Ethics don't factor into this kind of system; an ethical system is a bankrupt system that can't put out any fires. First of all I don't have full understanding what ethics mean, but I think the system is ethical and the firefighters not putting out the fire (as long as there was no1 in the building) was morally right because it kept the system working in future. All this over $75, it's disgusting. It was all over to protect the houseowners who paid the $75. I think it's not disgusting it was simply best way to keep the fire department running and that way protect the people who PAY to run the fire department, which protects their homes.In short I think this system works. 1) There are people who run fire department I bet they don't get huge paychecks for risking their lives. *cheers for them 2)People pay small fee in advance so they and every1 else who pay it can get the service when they need it. This kinda system DOES not work if there is freeloaders, that's why goverments have to take loans and raise taxes to run their system because there's too many freeloaders. Yeah the firefighters just stood there, so? When I see someone in need of help and I can help him I usually do so, but not if it means that lot of other people who need the same help and have done something to get the help don't get it. sry for bad english | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
| ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On October 06 2010 04:27 stroggos wrote: wow the nobility of firefighting has just gone down a notch, well at least in this case. This sickens me that a society could function this way. The funny thing is that this guy, as a rural American resident, almost certainly voted for people who support this kind of system (Republicans). | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense. | ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
| ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
| ||
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On October 06 2010 04:25 Zzoram wrote: The moral of the story is that people should actually show up to elections and vote for the candidates that support social public services (Democrats) instead of the guys who want to cut these services (Republican). Too bad rural areas that are affected by this continue to only vote Republican because anti-government sentiment runs strong and deep in rural areas. Firefighters can only act within the bounds set by their politician bosses. It costs money to provide those services. I don't want to pay for a service that I don't need. | ||
|
KillyKyll
United States267 Posts
On October 06 2010 03:39 cz wrote: He didn't have a bullet in his leg, thus your analogy is irrelevant to this discussion. There is a greater economic problem with helping this guy who chose not to pay: it sets a precedent that will lead to decreased revenues and thus worse service overall for everyone. What if he was fined 300$ or more afterwards? They were there anyway, so it wouldn't hurt the overall system. | ||
|
NIJ
1012 Posts
On October 06 2010 04:29 cz wrote: The funny thing is that this guy, as a rural American resident, almost certainly voted for people who support this kind of system (Republicans). he didn't want to pay $75 to the city to cover his house from burning down. I'm pretty sure he's a republican. | ||
|
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
On October 06 2010 04:29 cz wrote: The funny thing is that this guy, as a rural American resident, almost certainly voted for people who support this kind of system (Republicans). clearly he's a democrat because he was too stupid to pay the $75 bucks and was waiting for some welfare to pay for it for him. all jokes aside, who cares about the political implications. Pay the fee if u want the service. Not that tough. | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
On October 06 2010 04:35 Killykill wrote: What if he was fined 300$ or more afterwards? They were there anyway, so it wouldn't hurt the overall system. It would probably have to be more. People aren't going to pay $75 for an extremely small chance to save $300. You would have to make the fee quite high to get people to still pay the annual fee. I would say to get rid of the "fee" system altogether. It just doesn't work. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On October 06 2010 04:35 Killykill wrote: What if he was fined 300$ or more afterwards? They were there anyway, so it wouldn't hurt the overall system. That would be a system change, which is a different discussion. They couldn't strike a deal while there as it would be legally murky and would open up the firefighters to lawsuit. | ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On October 06 2010 04:30 xM(Z wrote: firefighters as humans should have put out the fire. firefighters as employees should not have put out the fire. when should one take precedent over the other?. IMO, "money" should never win in a fight vs "morals". it just deters human evolution in the end. its common sense. So many forum warriors live in fantasy land. You can't just break the law as you see fit. Change has to happen through elected officials proposing legislation, then survive judiciary review. As a society we have to abide by our laws. If you don't like them, vote for someone who will change them. | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On October 06 2010 03:54 Wire wrote: A good Dose of mises will do here.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 What produces a man's profit in the course of affairs within an unhampered market society is not his fellow citizen's plight and distress but the fact that he alleviates or entirely removes what causes his fellow citizen's feeling of uneasiness. What hurts the sick is the plague, not the physician who treats the disease. The doctor's gain is not an outcome of the epidemics but of the aid he gives to those affected. The ultimate source of profits is always the foresight of future conditions. Those who succeeded better than others in anticipating future events and in adjusting their activities to the future state of the market reap profits because they are in a position to satisfy the most urgent needs of the public. The profits of those who have produced goods and services for which the buyers scramble are not the source of the losses of those who have brought to the market commodities in the purchase of which the public is not prepared to pay the full amount of production costs expended. These losses are caused by the lack of insight displayed in anticipating the future demand of the consumers. On October 06 2010 03:59 diehilde wrote: 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. Wow... YOU come talk about ethics? Free market Libertarianism has the ethical high ground, ALWAYS. “The issue is not whether public schools are good or bad, but rather whether I am allowed to disagree with you without getting shot.” Most political debates really are that simple. People don’t get into violent debates about which restaurant is best because the state doesn’t impose one restaurant on everyone – and shoot those trying to set up competing restaurants. The truth is that I couldn’t care less about this woman’s views on education – just as she couldn’t care less about my views – but we are forced to debate because we are not allowed to hold opposing views without one of us getting shot. That was the essence of our debate, and as long as it remained unacknowledged, we weren’t going to get anywhere. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
| ||
|
CurLy[]
United States759 Posts
| ||
|
NukeTheBunnys
United States1004 Posts
On October 06 2010 04:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So the city has decided to expand the subscription service to other towns, also it would cost an extra 13 cents of property tax in order to fund the Fire Department http://troy.troytn.com/Obion County Fire Department Presentation Presented to the County Commission.pdf I actually read this and it is a propsial to create a county wide fire department that would have made this a non issue. It is dated from 2008, and so clearly was not accepted because if it was accepted he would have had the fire put out. It would have cost an additional $0.13 per person in the county to enact this plan, or an additional $116 per house hold outside the municipal areas(two separate funding plans, and there were several more). Clearly neither of these plans passed. So what this amounts to is that the county decided that it did not to increase the fire protection for these costs. It had some interesting information in there, such as Rural calls account for 75% of the calls that the fire departments in the county are responding too. They charge a fee for the response, rural or otherwise, but have no legal way of collecting this fee from the rural property owners, and end up collecting it less then 50% of the time. In response some of the county fire departments refuse to respond to calls from rural areas that do not have the subscription, the South Fulton F.D. is one of the two that refuse. A third may or may not respond with out the subscription. | ||
| ||
