|
On October 05 2010 15:25 kazie wrote:
why did they think they deserved to be an exception?
lol
They didn't ask to be an exception. They asked to pay an amount of money for a service. Even people without insurance are able to do this. If your car gets damaged and you don't have insurance, can you not get your car fixed by a mechanic if you pay a certain amount? If you don't have health insurance and you become ill can you not receive care if you pay a certain amount?
Even a hardcore anti-government free market supporter can not agree with this decision? Why? Because the firefighters would not fight the fire for any amount of money. If you have somebody turning down $25 million to put out a small house fire, then that is NOT a free market solution.
The problem is that they can't offer this because house fires happen so infrequently that if everyone did this they would need to charge people hundreds of thousands of dollarss just to breakeven.
|
On October 05 2010 15:31 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:30 dogabutila wrote:On October 05 2010 15:24 Jibba wrote:On October 05 2010 15:22 dogabutila wrote:
Actually, private // volunteer policing with cert's required would be the most ideal way of law enforcement. Unfortunately, it would be highly impractical to transition. :-/ Everything about pure volunteer based society/anarcho-capitalism is impractical. Not really, a bunch of things work better privately then they do run by government. For example, packages. Capitalism is not the same as anarcho-capitalism. I'm not arguing against private industry, I'm arguing against a pure voluntary society.
Purely voluntary policing would never work. Purely private policing would never work either, but they have opposite flaws and would compliment each other nicely. It has to be a mix of both private policing as well as volunteer policing. Obviously though, it would be pretty difficult (to say the least) to transition from where we are to being in that ideal state. It wouldn't be worth it at all.
Which is what I was originally trying to say, albeit less clearly.
|
On October 05 2010 15:35 xbankx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:24 Droodjerky wrote: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. The $75 fee was Insurance. So, they didn't have to do a damned thing to save his house. You should also know they would be under no obligation to save anyone/anything in the house. Basically, if they (and you) were to follow your logic to it's conclusions. You'd sit outside and watch people burn to death in the house as well. You see, the man didn't pay to have anyone rescued in case of a fire. Money doesn't give a crap about anything other than money. You see, it's not profit that helps people. It's people that help people. Watching someones house burn down is a douche thing to do. And you sir are a hypocrite for not standing with your logic all the way through. As I said as long as there is no people in the house then the fire department is under no obligation to help. The guy didn't pay his fee so he suffered the consequence by losing his monetary property. Life is another case though that is why I put in the clause that "as long as there are no people in the house". Look life is hard, nothing is free so you either pay the fees or suffer the consequences. People can be generous and help but don't expect it every time.
So, you're a hypocrite. You're not following your logic to it's conclusion. You see, he didn't pay the bill. So, you should watch the people burn like you watch the house burn.
It's analogous to health insurance. You don't/can't pay, you don't get your life saved. There E.R. circumstances that you do get saved (from immediate danger) and charged out the arse for it later.
Which, is why I think they should have saved the house and charged a large fee. Since it's in line with other Insurance Industry Standards.
|
On October 05 2010 15:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:25 kazie wrote:
why did they think they deserved to be an exception?
lol They didn't ask to be an exception. They asked to pay an amount of money for a service. Even people without insurance are able to do this. If your car gets damaged and you don't have insurance, can you not get your car fixed by a mechanic if you pay a certain amount? If you don't have health insurance and you become ill can you not receive care if you pay a certain amount? Even a hardcore anti-government free market supporter can not agree with this decision? Why? Because the firefighters would not fight the fire for any amount of money. If you have somebody turning down $25 million to put out a small house fire, then that is NOT a free market solution. The problem is that they can't offer this because house fires happen so infrequently that if everyone did this they would need to charge people hundreds of thousands of dollarss just to breakeven.
The problem isn't that you can't pay a lump sum for a service, the issue is that there was no lump sum fee already established and the man was bartering with the wrong people in trying to set one. You don't negotiate with a nurse or doctor about what to pay for a procedure, you go to the administrative people who have the authority to make those decisions. This man was trying to pay the firefighters for help, they don't have the authority to set prices for services.
If the man had previously agreed to a set fee with the administrators in the event that his house did catch fire and he needed to call for help, or if the administrators had created such a service with a set fee in advance, then he could have bought it.
|
On October 05 2010 15:18 illu wrote:
Wait.
What if my neighbour did not pay the fee, but I did... then his house got set on fire... but the fire department refused to help... then the fire spreaded to my house?
User was temp banned for this post.
wtf why was this guy banned? I noticed like 5 people quoted him and said "thats what happened in the article" or something. You all misunderstood this post because he is asking what happens if the blaze runs out of control and it burns down the entire neighborhood just because the firefighters refused to put it out when it was manageable. Which is a valid question and no reason to ban him..
|
On October 05 2010 15:41 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:38 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 15:25 kazie wrote:
why did they think they deserved to be an exception?
lol They didn't ask to be an exception. They asked to pay an amount of money for a service. Even people without insurance are able to do this. If your car gets damaged and you don't have insurance, can you not get your car fixed by a mechanic if you pay a certain amount? If you don't have health insurance and you become ill can you not receive care if you pay a certain amount? Even a hardcore anti-government free market supporter can not agree with this decision? Why? Because the firefighters would not fight the fire for any amount of money. If you have somebody turning down $25 million to put out a small house fire, then that is NOT a free market solution. The problem is that they can't offer this because house fires happen so infrequently that if everyone did this they would need to charge people hundreds of thousands of dollarss just to breakeven. The problem isn't that you can't pay a lump sum for a service, the issue is that there was no lump sum fee already established and the man was bartering with the wrong people in trying to set one. You don't negotiate with a nurse or doctor about what to pay for a procedure, you go to the administrative people who have the authority to make those decisions. This man was trying to pay the firefighters for help, they don't have the authority to set prices for services.
Of course. Most of us aren't saying the firefighters are idiots, we're saying that the policy is idiotic.
|
What exactly goes through your head when you choose not to buy protection from fire? Do you think, "What are they going to do, watch my house burn down?" or "Heh, why pay that? My house will never burn down!"
If you arn't going to rely on other people to fight your fires, wouldn't you want to be prepared for them yourself? This guy is either a real idiot, or a manipulative SOB who is now crying since people didn't act like he wanted them to.
|
On October 05 2010 15:42 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:18 illu wrote:
Wait.
What if my neighbour did not pay the fee, but I did... then his house got set on fire... but the fire department refused to help... then the fire spreaded to my house?
User was temp banned for this post. wtf why was this guy banned? I noticed like 5 people quoted him and said "thats what happened in the article" or something. You all misunderstood this post because he is asking what happens if the blaze runs out of control and it burns down the entire neighborhood just because the firefighters refused to put it out when it was manageable. Which is a valid question and no reason to ban him..
He was likely banned because his question was answered by the article and he didn't bother to read it. The article specifically said that the firefighters only showed up to protect the neighbour that did pay the fee.
|
United States7927 Posts
On October 05 2010 15:44 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:41 Zzoram wrote:On October 05 2010 15:38 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 15:25 kazie wrote:
why did they think they deserved to be an exception?
lol They didn't ask to be an exception. They asked to pay an amount of money for a service. Even people without insurance are able to do this. If your car gets damaged and you don't have insurance, can you not get your car fixed by a mechanic if you pay a certain amount? If you don't have health insurance and you become ill can you not receive care if you pay a certain amount? Even a hardcore anti-government free market supporter can not agree with this decision? Why? Because the firefighters would not fight the fire for any amount of money. If you have somebody turning down $25 million to put out a small house fire, then that is NOT a free market solution. The problem is that they can't offer this because house fires happen so infrequently that if everyone did this they would need to charge people hundreds of thousands of dollarss just to breakeven. The problem isn't that you can't pay a lump sum for a service, the issue is that there was no lump sum fee already established and the man was bartering with the wrong people in trying to set one. You don't negotiate with a nurse or doctor about what to pay for a procedure, you go to the administrative people who have the authority to make those decisions. This man was trying to pay the firefighters for help, they don't have the authority to set prices for services. Of course. Most of us aren't saying the firefighters are idiots, we're saying that the policy is idiotic.
I'm saying the fire fighters are idiots... The policy is what it is, but to sit and watch as a mans house burns down. Screw off. I don't care what my "orders" were I'd help no matter what and we could discuss compensation later
|
Bunch of communists up in this thread. That and meaningless fearmongering/grasping for straws. How do we know they don't have specific guidelines for the instance of casualties in said fire, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they do. Now, WITH THIS RADICAL WAY OF THINKING all your bleeding heart moralist theories are lame as you are. You didn't pay for a service why should you receive it. To the people who say what about the dangers of it spreading, I say l2read, it says in the passage that they put out any chance of it spreading to paying customers. What you "moralists" want is just like Octomom and Welfare, they want a baby but no means to take care of it, oh throw it on the shoulders of the gov't. Why should I have to actually be able to support the things I want? If his house wasn't important enough to insure for $75 dollars than it's not important enough for the firefighters to save for free. On the other hand, chances of fire are lower than how much that 75 dollars is worth to you is CALLED A GAMBLE. And he lost. End story
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 05 2010 15:44 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:41 Zzoram wrote:On October 05 2010 15:38 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 15:25 kazie wrote:
why did they think they deserved to be an exception?
lol They didn't ask to be an exception. They asked to pay an amount of money for a service. Even people without insurance are able to do this. If your car gets damaged and you don't have insurance, can you not get your car fixed by a mechanic if you pay a certain amount? If you don't have health insurance and you become ill can you not receive care if you pay a certain amount? Even a hardcore anti-government free market supporter can not agree with this decision? Why? Because the firefighters would not fight the fire for any amount of money. If you have somebody turning down $25 million to put out a small house fire, then that is NOT a free market solution. The problem is that they can't offer this because house fires happen so infrequently that if everyone did this they would need to charge people hundreds of thousands of dollarss just to breakeven. The problem isn't that you can't pay a lump sum for a service, the issue is that there was no lump sum fee already established and the man was bartering with the wrong people in trying to set one. You don't negotiate with a nurse or doctor about what to pay for a procedure, you go to the administrative people who have the authority to make those decisions. This man was trying to pay the firefighters for help, they don't have the authority to set prices for services. Of course. Most of us aren't saying the firefighters are idiots, we're saying that the policy is idiotic.
Again, real world is not either black or white. People go with decisions with best expected outcome. Now you complain about the policy? There are many stupid policies but overall, they're for better good. So instead of complaining, can you suggest a better system? A better system is the system that works better for general cases most of the time, not for this particular case.
The only stupid thing here is the funding source of the fire department. As someone said earlier, the firedepartment should get money from the government which is from the mandatory land tax.
|
On October 05 2010 15:47 itzbrandnew wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:44 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 15:41 Zzoram wrote:On October 05 2010 15:38 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 15:25 kazie wrote:
why did they think they deserved to be an exception?
lol They didn't ask to be an exception. They asked to pay an amount of money for a service. Even people without insurance are able to do this. If your car gets damaged and you don't have insurance, can you not get your car fixed by a mechanic if you pay a certain amount? If you don't have health insurance and you become ill can you not receive care if you pay a certain amount? Even a hardcore anti-government free market supporter can not agree with this decision? Why? Because the firefighters would not fight the fire for any amount of money. If you have somebody turning down $25 million to put out a small house fire, then that is NOT a free market solution. The problem is that they can't offer this because house fires happen so infrequently that if everyone did this they would need to charge people hundreds of thousands of dollarss just to breakeven. The problem isn't that you can't pay a lump sum for a service, the issue is that there was no lump sum fee already established and the man was bartering with the wrong people in trying to set one. You don't negotiate with a nurse or doctor about what to pay for a procedure, you go to the administrative people who have the authority to make those decisions. This man was trying to pay the firefighters for help, they don't have the authority to set prices for services. Of course. Most of us aren't saying the firefighters are idiots, we're saying that the policy is idiotic. I'm saying the fire fighters are idiots... The policy is what it is, but to sit and watch as a mans house burns down. Screw off. I don't care what my "orders" were I'd help no matter what and we could discuss compensation later
Firefighters can't just go out of their jurisdiction and put out fires because they feel like it. Since that man who lived out of town didn't pay the fee, his home was not within the jurisdiction of the municipal fire department. If they put it out anyways they would be fired.
|
On October 05 2010 14:41 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote: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. 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?).
Lets say your figures are correct, and it was a monthly fee instead of yearly, the way the report is worded indicates he only forgot to pay once, and they still let his house burn to the ground. Does a family deserve to lose their home over $75? Do four animals deserve to burn to death over $75? If it was a yearly fee then $7500 is way more than anybody would pay in a lifetime, assuming they didn't own their home for more than 100 years.
|
On October 05 2010 15:49 hixhix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:44 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 15:41 Zzoram wrote:On October 05 2010 15:38 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 15:25 kazie wrote:
why did they think they deserved to be an exception?
lol They didn't ask to be an exception. They asked to pay an amount of money for a service. Even people without insurance are able to do this. If your car gets damaged and you don't have insurance, can you not get your car fixed by a mechanic if you pay a certain amount? If you don't have health insurance and you become ill can you not receive care if you pay a certain amount? Even a hardcore anti-government free market supporter can not agree with this decision? Why? Because the firefighters would not fight the fire for any amount of money. If you have somebody turning down $25 million to put out a small house fire, then that is NOT a free market solution. The problem is that they can't offer this because house fires happen so infrequently that if everyone did this they would need to charge people hundreds of thousands of dollarss just to breakeven. The problem isn't that you can't pay a lump sum for a service, the issue is that there was no lump sum fee already established and the man was bartering with the wrong people in trying to set one. You don't negotiate with a nurse or doctor about what to pay for a procedure, you go to the administrative people who have the authority to make those decisions. This man was trying to pay the firefighters for help, they don't have the authority to set prices for services. Of course. Most of us aren't saying the firefighters are idiots, we're saying that the policy is idiotic. Again, real world is not either black or white. People go with decisions with best expected outcome. Now you complain about the policy? There are many stupid policies but overall, they're for better good. So instead of complaining, can you suggest a better system? A better system is the system that works better for general cases most of the time, not for this particular case. The only stupid thing here is the funding source of the fire department. As someone said earlier, the firedepartment should get money from the government which is from the mandatory land tax.
The house that burned down was outside of city limits. That house probably didn't pay any property tax to the city, which is why it required a fee to get services from the city.
|
On October 05 2010 15:47 itzbrandnew wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:44 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 15:41 Zzoram wrote:On October 05 2010 15:38 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 15:25 kazie wrote:
why did they think they deserved to be an exception?
lol They didn't ask to be an exception. They asked to pay an amount of money for a service. Even people without insurance are able to do this. If your car gets damaged and you don't have insurance, can you not get your car fixed by a mechanic if you pay a certain amount? If you don't have health insurance and you become ill can you not receive care if you pay a certain amount? Even a hardcore anti-government free market supporter can not agree with this decision? Why? Because the firefighters would not fight the fire for any amount of money. If you have somebody turning down $25 million to put out a small house fire, then that is NOT a free market solution. The problem is that they can't offer this because house fires happen so infrequently that if everyone did this they would need to charge people hundreds of thousands of dollarss just to breakeven. The problem isn't that you can't pay a lump sum for a service, the issue is that there was no lump sum fee already established and the man was bartering with the wrong people in trying to set one. You don't negotiate with a nurse or doctor about what to pay for a procedure, you go to the administrative people who have the authority to make those decisions. This man was trying to pay the firefighters for help, they don't have the authority to set prices for services. Of course. Most of us aren't saying the firefighters are idiots, we're saying that the policy is idiotic. I'm saying the fire fighters are idiots... The policy is what it is, but to sit and watch as a mans house burns down. Screw off. I don't care what my "orders" were I'd help no matter what and we could discuss compensation later
So you would sacrifice your career to save someone from financial hardship. Sure you would buddy.
|
On October 05 2010 15:50 Helios.Star wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:41 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote: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. 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?). Lets say your figures are correct, and it was a monthly fee instead of yearly, the way the report is worded indicates he only forgot to pay once, and they still let his house burn to the ground. Does a family deserve to lose their home over $75? Do four animals deserve to burn to death over $75? If it was a yearly fee then $7500 is way more than anybody would pay in a lifetime, assuming they didn't own their home for more than 100 years.
If you can't be responsible enough to own a home and do everything that comes with it......
|
I wrote like 10 responses to post here all contributing to the plight that this story exhumes all i just didn't post so i just saw the direction of this thread and am going to shoot for the most general.
People no longer feel the need to burden the costs of a society. Rhetoric of bearing the burden of society is no longer in politics. Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You is no longer founded in mainstream politics. No more LBJ war on poverty. As the conservative right started to encroach up on America in the well let's just give it the post Regan era. People have just been blaming others, pushing the cost to somewhere else, someone else if they can and this is the result.
People are not heartless, not cold and hateful.There is no reason to attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.
This is just another crack in the glass. And i'm just wondering how many more cracks need to show up before someone who has pull starts to do something about it
|
On October 05 2010 15:50 Helios.Star wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:41 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote: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. 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?). Lets say your figures are correct, and it was a monthly fee instead of yearly, the way the report is worded indicates he only forgot to pay once, and they still let his house burn to the ground. Does a family deserve to lose their home over $75? Do four animals deserve to burn to death over $75? If it was a yearly fee then $7500 is way more than anybody would pay in a lifetime, assuming they didn't own their home for more than 100 years.
No, but the man let them die by not opening his front door and calling to them before the fire got to his house. The fire department was called when some barrels OUTSIDE his house caught fire. The article clearly states that the fire had not reached his house when the firefighters got there. The man should've had plenty of time to get his animals out, but he was probably irresponsible and figured he'd leave them inside and make the firefighters get them.
|
On October 05 2010 15:52 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:50 Helios.Star wrote:On October 05 2010 14:41 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote: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. 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?). Lets say your figures are correct, and it was a monthly fee instead of yearly, the way the report is worded indicates he only forgot to pay once, and they still let his house burn to the ground. Does a family deserve to lose their home over $75? Do four animals deserve to burn to death over $75? If it was a yearly fee then $7500 is way more than anybody would pay in a lifetime, assuming they didn't own their home for more than 100 years. If you can't be responsible enough to own a home and do everything that comes with it......
Yep, humans never forget to do anything. Apparently you never have.
|
On October 05 2010 15:46 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 15:42 BlackJack wrote:On October 05 2010 15:18 illu wrote:
Wait.
What if my neighbour did not pay the fee, but I did... then his house got set on fire... but the fire department refused to help... then the fire spreaded to my house?
User was temp banned for this post. wtf why was this guy banned? I noticed like 5 people quoted him and said "thats what happened in the article" or something. You all misunderstood this post because he is asking what happens if the blaze runs out of control and it burns down the entire neighborhood just because the firefighters refused to put it out when it was manageable. Which is a valid question and no reason to ban him.. He was likely banned because his question was answered by the article and he didn't bother to read it. The article specifically said that the firefighters only showed up to protect the neighbour that did pay the fee.
lol I even said in my post that's not what he was asking at all. He is talking about a negligence issue that can arise from firefighters letting a blaze run wild and killing people and damaging other properties that do have the service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
