It's certainly what a dysfunctional government is like.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
This is precisely the example of why Libertarian models of gov't are unworkable, immoral, unethical, and stupid.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
a) The guy knew that there was no county fire department. b) The nearby city (which this guy does not live in and does not pay taxes to) has a program to allow people to be covered by their fire department for a paltry $75/year. c) This guy chose to not be covered by the city fire department, and then when a fire happened he assumed that he'd be covered anyway
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
There is a difference between actively choosing to not pay for a service, and forgetting to pay money for a service. Things like this are why opt-out solutions are preferable, make an opt-out solution of paying for it, and that way you can't just forget.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We don't know that he forgot. According to the stories, they get mailed and phone call reminders to make sure.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There is a difference between actively choosing to not pay for a service, and forgetting to pay money for a service.
Good point. I hadn't actually read this article, I was just going off of what I read in two other articles on this subject.
That does change things a little.
But in this situation, it's not possible to have it opt-out. The city has no authority over people in the county.
The real problem here is that the county has no fire department.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
mph,
The guy has paid the fee in the past, and he claims he forgot to pay this year. You're starting off on the wrong foot by claiming you know his intent.
Then there's the many other problems with this story, such as the fact that the guy offered to pay "whatever it takes" to put the fire out, or that the fire department was present (even fighting the same fire) and could have easily put it out, but stubbornly chose not to. I hope the insurance company sues the daylights out of the fire department and mayor.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
He also offered, on the spot, to pay their actual costs. They declined.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Forget about all the facts of this story. about the lack of a fire department, about the $75 fee to be covered. Imagine you are a human being standing next to a man's house which is burning to the ground, and in your hands you have the means to put out the fire. How in the hell do you not act out of goodwill to your fellow man?
This is what gets me more than anything about this story.
plus what Glenn and MattP just said.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Glenn-- see my post above yours.
quote:the fire department was present (even fighting the same fire) and could have easily put it out, but stubbornly chose not to. I hope the insurance company sues the daylights out of the fire department and mayor.
What could he possibly sue them for? Not fighting a fire when one has the ability to is not a crime.
quote:He also offered, on the spot, to pay their actual costs. They declined.
I'm not surprised that the firemen are not authorized to make on-the-spot transactions worth tens of thousands of dollars.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Imagine you are a human being standing next to a man's house which is burning to the ground, and in your hands you have the means to put out the fire. How in the hell do you not act out of goodwill to your fellow man?
Well, they're not just people standing there who could put it out -- they're people with hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment that they could use to put out a fire. Equipment that they don't own, and that they're not authorized to use to fight that fire.
It wasn't the firemen's call -- it was the mayor who made the call that county citizens who did not pay the fee wouldn't be protected. If those firemen went out and fought fires on the city's dime because they wanted to, I'd expect them to be fired almost immediately.
While it would have been nifty for the city to have the goodwill and charity to extend firefighting services to people that didn't pay for it, I can't fault the mayor on making this pretty reasonable financial decision.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
This is not a failure of libertarian policies. A private firefighting company would, in such circumstances, charge a tenth of the value of the house, and make a nice profit. Firefighters of the local government have no such authority. This is a government failure born of inflexible policies.
But then again, the guy clearly has some major fail on his side as well. If you 'forgot' to pay your car insurance, would you expect the insurer to pay up after you crashed? Perhaps you could offer to pay them "whatever it took", eh?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: He also offered, on the spot, to pay their actual costs. They declined.
As Porter indicated the firemen could have very good reasons for not putting out the fire anyway. In fact in one of the articles the man explicitly states he doesn't blame the fireman.
The firemen themselves could lose their jobs if they use the equipment in an unauthorized fashion. A whole bunch of stuff went wrong before those firemen ever showed up at the scene of the fire.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
I didn't know there was anywhere in the country not covered by fire, police, and EMS. This makes me wonder, what if lives had been on the line? Does the city have a policy of responding to those types of cases?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I was thinking the same thing Miro. What if a small child was trapped in the house?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:"If somebody is trapped in the house we're going to go because life safety is number one but we can't give the service away," Edmison said. "It's not South Fulton's problem. It's not Union City's problem. It's the county's problem. There is no county fire department."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Another quote from the fire chief in that same article:
quote: "If we just waited to charge when we went out there, you'd be working on a per-call basis," he said. "With no more calls than there are, the money wouldn't be there in a sufficient source to buy the equipment you need."
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Ah, thanks.
If the county can't afford to maintain their own fire department, maybe they should contract with the city to share the resources of the city's department. That way the city gets a steady stream of revenue for their services and the residents of the county get coverage (which I would have to assume would be less than the $75/household going rate). I'm still in disbelief that there are places not covered by any fire department.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Also, just to make clear, I'm not just upset at the fire department, I'm upset at the system and everyone involved that would lead any group of people to let a house burn down when they could stop it. Whether it comes from a philosophy of "fair is fair" or "rules are rules" or "that's not my responsibility" or "i don't have the authority" or anything else.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Also, just to make clear, I'm not just upset at the fire department, I'm upset at the system and everyone involved...
(emphasis mine)
You're not upset at the fire department, but you're upset at the individual firefighters?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Then there's the many other problems with this story, such as the fact that the guy offered to pay "whatever it takes" to put the fire out, or that the fire department was present (even fighting the same fire) and could have easily put it out, but stubbornly chose not to.
quote: He also offered, on the spot, to pay their actual costs. They declined.
The problem with this sentiment is that if people knew they could pay insurance only when they need it then everyone would stop paying and the whole system would be underfunded and collapse.
There is also more cost to running a fire department then just the actual costs of a specific incident.
The fire department did exactly the right thing to continue to get the resources they need to help the greatest number of people. The problem is that the outlying county is treating this as optional fire insurance. What they should do is work something out where they have their own local tax that the county then gives to the larger city that has firemen--that way everyone is covered like a regular city.
As long as it is treated as insurance it MUST be administered like insurance...otherwise the system fails. I agree they need to replace the system, but I absolutely defend the decision that was made. If the county without firemen refuses to work out a method of covering/funding everyone and it continues to rely on "fire insurance" from a neighboring city, then the firemen have no choice but to refuse service if payment is not made.
I am pretty sure there is a moral/legal obligation to save someone if you can--much like how ERs have to treat everyone who come in the door.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
mph, I said i'm not just upset at the fire department, I'm upset at everyone involved. I don't think that's inconsistent at all. I'm upset a system that led to a bunch of firefighters standing around and watching a house burn down, regardless of whether they didn't have the authority to put it out. That lack of authority is part of the thing I'm upset at.
edit: switched to bold since it looked like i was yelling.
[ October 06, 2010, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ah. Gotcha.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How far does that extend? Are you upset at the other cities in the county whose fire departments didn't put out this fire?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
In part that would depend on how much they knew of the situation. But no, I don't expect the entire state's resources to descend on this guy's house.
A large part of the issue for me in this situation is that the firemen were on the scene of the fire.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
They were there to keep the fire from spreading to somebody else's property.
Would you find them less culpable if they hadn't come out to the fire at all?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
There's a good blog post on this topic from a few years ago, about a town in Alaska.
quote:If you had paid, they’d douse your house with water – no small trick in a place where the temperature got so cold that a cup of hot coffee would freeze into brown ice crystals when flung into mid-air. They’d put the fire out, and do their job.
If not? They’d call the cops. They’d get all the pets and the people out of the building; the volunteer firemen of Alaska were not cruel men. They’d wet the houses next to yours, making sure that the fire didn’t spread to consume all of Fairbanks.
Then they would sit down and watch your house burn.
The cops were there to protect the firemen; it wasn’t uncommon to have some furious homeowner run up and take a swing at the firemen carefully studying the blaze. And it must be tough to sit there and watch, knowing that your home was so close to being saved and yet having the whole society working against you.
But it had to be done. Because if people knew that the firemen would save them free of charge, then nobody would pay. And if people knew that you could avoid paying the firemen up until the moment that first spark hit your curtain, well, again, nobody would pay.
And if nobody paid, everyone paid. As I’ve said, those firetrucks and hoses and buildings weren’t cheap. If they let a couple of people slide, soon enough they wouldn’t be able to afford the upkeep and everyone’s houses would burn.
I imagine the firefighters had a bitter satisfaction in knowing that they were correct, which might – might – have been enough to offset the cries of wailing children and shrieking families. But it was an ugly balance: this one crying child would be many more screaming children if everyone in town realized they could cheat the firemen. Who would be left then?
Basically, I agree with Jeff Woods at the end of the OP article - the law should be set up so that this can't happen in the first place.
It's not "the law" that is at fault -- the problem exists because there is no county fire department.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
So why doesn't charging people $25k (to pick a number) if they put the fire out and you haven't paid your $75 serve the same purpose without the stupidity?
This kind of stupidity is also removed if we pay for fire service out of general taxes rather than having a special fee (that you no doubt have to write a separate check for).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:So why doesn't charging people $25k (to pick a number) if they put the fire out and you haven't paid your $75 serve the same purpose without the stupidity?
Because we can't ask firefighters to also be a collector's agency. What are they supposed to do, get a promissory note? Have a debit card machine on the side of their truck? Take your sworn verbal statement? What happens when the person promises to pay the exorbitant uninsured fee and then they can't? What if the person in the heat of the moment says they will pay but now they won't?
What if the fire dept paid people to start fires at uninsured places just so they could collect more money?
The county needs a fire dept, it's a much simpler and less risky solution.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:"If somebody is trapped in the house we're going to go because life safety is number one but we can't give the service away," Edmison said. "It's not South Fulton's problem. It's not Union City's problem. It's the county's problem. There is no county fire department."
It's not just a matter of whether there is a life being directly threatened. Fires can and do take off with a gust of wind and consume thousands of acres.
quote:Would you find them less culpable if they hadn't come out to the fire at all?
The firemen? Yes. There are a lot of breakpoints where I could see very different responses. Given the setup, I understand the 911 operator telling the guy that they won't respond to his call because he hasn't paid the fee. But that changes when the guy offered to pay. Likewise, when the fire department was fighting the neighbor's fire, I understand why they ignored the other property at that point.
quote:The problem with this sentiment is that if people knew they could pay insurance only when they need it then everyone would stop paying and the whole system would be underfunded and collapse.
No it wouldn't. Fire departments have historically been volunteer, and funded by donation. In my town, we are sent mail solicitations to donate to the fire department, along with an estimate of "our fair share." Some people can't or don't pay, others pay more than their share. But the system doesn't collapse. If the funds are running low, they run pancake breakfasts, and raffles. We get more solicitations by mail. And people step up and fork it over.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:But that changes when the guy offered to pay.
This is only relevant if the guy has a clear and obviously reliable method of payment. Choosing not to pay and then saying "Oh I totally have money and can afford to reimburse you" while their house is burning down is not a statement that can be accepted as face value and making a habit of accepting those statements is not guaranteed to avoid problems.
If the system is getting enough in donations despite having a lax policy, that's one thing. But if you're in a town small enough that the donations are NOT enough (which I thought was part of the problem), then accepting promises from desperate people isn't going to help.
That said -
quote:No it wouldn't. Fire departments have historically been volunteer, and funded by donation. In my town, we are sent mail solicitations to donate to the fire department, along with an estimate of "our fair share."
Do we not pay ANY taxes for the Fire Department? I assumed we did.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: It's not "the law" that is at fault
The law is precisely what is at fault. This is a much simpler issue than it is made out to be: that a county can vote for 'no fire protection' is a failure on the state level, that should be remedied. It would be like being able to vote for no police protection, then police are only allowed to stand around and twiddle their thumbs if your property gets robbed. Fire immunity is kind of like herd immunity with vaccines; for most intents and purposes, you're only as safe as everyone around you is, and the 'let's invite tragedy to preserve a commons tragedy' approach is bull (one that, thankfully, not even most conservatives will argue for).
This is an object lesson in the Free Rider Problem, and fire is a perfect example of an externality that follows its own rules and refuses to play nice re: rights ethics.
Taxation to provide fire fighting services are pretty much explicitly economically efficient.
End of story. Its good government, government should be doing it. The only reasons that governments aren't doing it — in this county, or anywhere! — is because they're too small or too thoughtless. That they do not is not an indictment of government which can explain why they should not do it (hello, circular reasoning). It is good government for various reasons, not the least of which is explained in the particulars of this event.
Now, the fact that local governments aren't doing it everywhere is not the end of the world. Some places are so distributed and rural that it doesn't much matter(I.E. if your house burns down, it will be ashes before the fire department, govt or private, gets there).
But there really is no argument as to whether or not its a good idea to have fire departments paid for by taxes. Yes, they should, explicitly, all the time, yes it's a good idea.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It sounds like the system was broken before this happened, frankly. The necessary coverage wasn't there. Either everyone should pay by expectation or there should be a local, volunteer fire service.
If, as cited, the firemen have to be present anyway in case they're needed to save lives and the police frequently have to come out to protect the firemen because the rules say those firemen have to sit there and watch the fire burn and this makes them look like callous bastards, it's hard to make an effective case that there's a huge cost savings from not putting out the fire.
There's a good reason a lot of places require car insurance, and as someone who was in two separate not-at-fault car accidents inside of a week with two different non-insured motorists, I really appreciate that fact.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: No it wouldn't. Fire departments have historically been volunteer, and funded by donation. In my town, we are sent mail solicitations to donate to the fire department, along with an estimate of "our fair share." Some people can't or don't pay, others pay more than their share. But the system doesn't collapse. If the funds are running low, they run pancake breakfasts, and raffles. We get more solicitations by mail. And people step up and fork it over.
What you are talking about is an entirely different system. I agree the system needs to change. My contention is that they need to change the system, but until they do they need to keep the current system working--and to do that they need to treat it like it is...insurance.
Insurance only works when everyone pays before they know if they need it. If everyone only had to pay when they required insurance then the insurance system would collapse. It would be worse for that to happen if a better (volunteer or tax based maybe) system was not yet in place.
You are not addressing what would happen if everyone stopped paying until they needed the fire department. Best case scenario is that the city would no longer offer services to the county at 75$ per house.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't see the problem. And the guy chose not to pay. He received reminders and ignored them. You make bad choices, there are often bad results.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yuck.
I'm inclined to agree with Lisa and others in that agreeing to let the guy pay retroactively would degrade the entire service. I think that allowing them to pay a big flat up front fee would have been best, in that it would have made the company a lot of money without ruining their business model, but that's their silly choice I suppose.
Having said that, it still irks me at a basic level. It just feels wrong. You know the old phrase, when your neighbor's house is on fire you don't haggle over the price of the garden hose. I've never seen a real life situation that fits it so perfectly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by HollowEarth: So why doesn't charging people $25k (to pick a number) if they put the fire out and you haven't paid your $75 serve the same purpose without the stupidity?
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Another quote from the fire chief in that same article:
quote: "If we just waited to charge when we went out there, you'd be working on a per-call basis," he said. "With no more calls than there are, the money wouldn't be there in a sufficient source to buy the equipment you need."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let's say that they found a dollar amount at which it would make monetary sense for them to charge a non-paying customer on the spot.
You've got a situation where the fire department, which is supposed to help prevent fires, is financially dependent on fires happening with some regularity.
That's a bad situation, and not on that I want to be in.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: If, as cited, the firemen have to be present anyway in case they're needed to save lives and the police frequently have to come out to protect the firemen because the rules say those firemen have to sit there and watch the fire burn and this makes them look like callous bastards, it's hard to make an effective case that there's a huge cost savings from not putting out the fire.
No, it's quite easy. If they always put out the fire regardless of whether the homeowners had paid, nobody would pay. The city would not be able to afford this, and they would stop fire coverage outside of the city at all.
Not putting out this guy's fire (and other fires like this) saves more homes from fire than putting it out would.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The law is precisely what is at fault. This is a much simpler issue than it is made out to be: that a county can vote for 'no fire protection' is a failure on the state level, that should be remedied.
Worth repeating.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
While I certainly wouldn't want to live in a county without fire protection, if the voters of that county don't want it, I don't see how it's a failure.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: While I certainly wouldn't want to live in a county without fire protection, if the voters of that county don't want it, I don't see how it's a failure.
This is definitely an issue the state can and should take care of. The federal government mandating this sort of thing while perhaps necessary at some point is not actually a victory.
State governments need to do a better job of taking care of the Americans living there. The federal government shouldn't have to do everything. I say that as a pretty big fan in centralized federal governance.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
In reference to Glenn's original question (and Blayne's insightful ejaculation):
Not really. There are several serious divergences here that are directly caused by government interference and not the market. For example, not accepting some ludicrously high on-the-spot payment from the victim. I don't think this would make the fire department "financially dependent" on fires happening; it would still be much more affordable for consumers to have fire insurance. But, like when someone without insurance (a kind that we actually have privatized, not hypothetical fire insurance) has an problem today, one could pay much more out of pocket in the event that they lacked any sort of insurance.
Also, the firefighters allowed the fire to spread to another building before putting out that building. From a business perspective this is utterly worthless customer service. Even if the man whose house was on fire was unable or unwilling to pay, a profitable fire fighting business would obviously keep the edges of the fire contained to prevent it from causing damage to one of their customers.
I'm not necessarily saying that an extreme libertarian or anarcho-capitalist fire-fighting system wouldn't have it's own flaws. Just that I think this particular event is, as Mucus put it, much more about a dysfunctional government.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: ... if the voters of that county don't want it, I don't see how it's a failure.
It should be no great surprise that I'm of the opinion that simple democracy is no shield for failures. In other words, I can certainly think of any number of policies or structures that have been put in place by voters, but lead to or are themselves failures in good government.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Hmmm... Perhaps you're right.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: No, it's quite easy. If they always put out the fire regardless of whether the homeowners had paid, nobody would pay. The city would not be able to afford this, and they would stop fire coverage outside of the city at all.
Not putting out this guy's fire (and other fires like this) saves more homes from fire than putting it out would.
By taking half the message, you're really missing the point. If there was no coverage outside the city, there would be an incentive for some sort of (volunteer or otherwise) local fire-fighting force. If they require payment across the board, the area is covered. It's only this kind of slipshod approach that has the worst of all worlds- there's the high cost of bringing out both the fire services and the police forces, which is a negligible savings versus just having the fire crew actually put out the fire- which was my point- and there's diminished fire protection for the community as a whole, and bad feelings toward the local emergency services because they're seen as callous mercenaries.
Returning to the idea you attempted to crowbar out of the original post, there's only a cost savings to this approach if letting non-payers burn serves as an effective deterrant against non-payment. Which shouldn't be taken as a given. There aren't enough fires in most places in a given year to set a clear precedent that the fire services will act like 'x' in a situation, any more than there are enough traffic accidents in most people's lives to convince those who don't buy insurance that doing so puts them at risk.
What is in place in the area described is an incredibly flawed system.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Here's a 2008 proposal to absorb the 8 municipal FD's to form a county-wide FD. It was voted down.
The county created a fire department in 1987, but has decided not to fund it. It only exists on paper.
quote:According to survey information, over 75% of all municipal fire department's structure calls are rural. All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas, but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal tax payer.
Since this was a 2008 proposal, I'm guessing that <50% collected has gone even lower in this economy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: While I certainly wouldn't want to live in a county without fire protection, if the voters of that county don't want it, I don't see how it's a failure.
Because fire coverage you can opt out of doesn't work on the whole. In any sufficiently populated region where fire can easily spread from one domicile to the next, ALL fires need to be put out, WHEREVER they originate, so you can't have the free rider problem. Privatized firefighting coverage and the 'fire marks' system was removed swiftly after the turn of the century because of how retarded it was. You would have firefighters standing in front of buildings haggling over whether to put out a fire or not put out a fire because it originated in a non-covered building but would guarantee spread to covered buildings, then the entire block would go up in smoke.
Even most libertarians, especially the consequentialists, have conceded that point: you can't have that system (this is why I don't consider this an example of 'libertarianism' in action, at least until we get a threshold of internet randtards taking this opportunity to say that all public firefighting systems are immoral). Want to have a modern city? Public firefighting. People who insist otherwise are guilty of total historical illiteracy. Why do you think something like firefighting got made public in the first place? Because when you don't, cities burn down. Routinely. This is not hypothetical.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I don't see the problem. And the guy chose not to pay. He received reminders and ignored them. You make bad choices, there are often bad results.
This, for me, is the fundamental problem with Libertarianism. It requires all of us to become people who don't see the problem with this. People who aren't bothered by a family losing their home and everything they own when it could have been saved. It requires us to be the kind of people who can, if we bother to think about it at all, shrug and say that he- and his wife and kids and pets - got what they deserved so who cares.
And yes, this was a failure of Libertarianism. Why, since there was no county fire department, didn't private industry step in to fill the gap? That's how it is supposed to work, right?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Why, since there was no county fire department, didn't private industry step in to fill the gap? That's how it is supposed to work, right?
Technically private industry did step in to fill the gap. The homeowner didn't pay for it though
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Exactly. And we as human beings are bothered by that. Or at least some of us are.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Exactly. And we as human beings are bothered by that. Or at least some of us are.
Agreed. Because when it comes to things like fire, as somebody mentioned, a person's house catching fire is *my* business as it can endanger me, my family, and our property.
The government needs to provide this service because it can prevent needless destruction and death.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The government needs to provide this service because it can prevent needless destruction and death.
This is pretty much my thinking as well. To me it's a shade on your (general 'you') fist ending at my face. I'm fine with people being compelled to pay for fire service because of the danger that its lack poses to me and mine.
ETA: And truthfully, I don't put a whole lot of stock in those who claim they want the choice and are unhappy they don't have it, because they're protected right now and have never experienced its lack. It's an easy thing to claim.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is my business because I am not the kind of person who "doesn't see the problem" with this regardless of whether my home was in danger.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And then there are people like me who sees a problem with situations like this, but also worries about the larger implications of making it the government's job to save people from their bad decisions. On a individual case to case basis, nanny state policies sound like great ideas, but they carry costs that often aren't acknowledged and are only really visible in a much longer term view.
I'm not knowledgeable about this and I think the answer would be pretty unknowable anyway, but it is possible that in this situation letting the specific houses of people who aren't paying from fire protection burn down may end up preventing more destruction and deaths in the whole. I'm obviously not saying that this is true or even that it can be known, but supposing that it is and we could know this, I'd have to say that allowing people to suffer from the consequences of their decisions would be the right call.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Agreed. Because when it comes to things like fire, as somebody mentioned, a person's house catching fire is *my* business as it can endanger me, my family, and our property.
But its also my business in a way that goes even beyond that... One of the fundamental problems of libertarianism in its most extreme form is the notion that a man's problem is his alone if it doesn't affect other people. But morality dictates that that notion isn't true. Your problems are to some degree my problems, simply because it is wrong of me to stand by and do absolutely nothing if I can help you. People have a fundamental ethical responsibility towards their neighbors. Even if this fire impacts nobody but the person who failed to pay his fee to the city, and even if he has done nothing to deserve it, we still have a responsibility to help him. In order to be workable, libertarianism must accept and factor in that responsibility.
This doesn't preclude the possibility of "tough love" - allowing people to experience the consequences of their mistakes so as to prevent mistakes from happening more often. However, I'm not sure this particular case would have that effect; I don't see people abandoning their fire insurance if the fire department cut this guy some slack.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't see people abandoning their fire insurance if the fire department cut this guy some slack.
The one time, maybe not. But if it becomes understood that they will put out your fire whether or not you paid, they yes, I definitely see people choosing not to pay. And then everybody loses.
Everybody wants to be the exception.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. Which is why society should provide fire departments, paid for by taxes.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I don't see the problem. And the guy chose not to pay. He received reminders and ignored them. You make bad choices, there are often bad results.
This, for me, is the fundamental problem with Libertarianism. It requires all of us to become people who don't see the problem with this. People who aren't bothered by a family losing their home and everything they own when it could have been saved. It requires us to be the kind of people who can, if we bother to think about it at all, shrug and say that he- and his wife and kids and pets - got what they deserved so who cares.
Wrong. Of course libertarians care. When someone loses their house, that's bad. When someone is killed because they didn't have their seatbelt on, that's bad. The point is that everything is a tradeoff. It's not a choice between one obviously-good option and one obviously-bad one; it's a choice between different evils, of which one is obvious and visible and the other is subtle, hard to see, and much bigger. Libertarians choose the lesser evil even though it is more visible. When fire departments don't get paid beforehand, then they end up having to charge through the nose every time they are called out, and then everyone loses. That's worse than a single guy losing his house.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The point is that everything is a tradeoff. It's not a choice between one obviously-good option and one obviously-bad one; it's a choice between different evils, of which one is obvious and visible and the other is subtle, hard to see, and much bigger. Libertarians choose the lesser evil even though it is more visible.
While I'm not entirely convinced that this is actually true, that seems a pretty good description of the situation from the libertarian POV.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
When government collects taxes to pay the fire departments, they are paid beforehand.
I am not saying that the fire department should have acted differently in this situation. I am saying that this libertarian - government isn't providing it so we can chose to pay the fee or not - situation should not have existed.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Just wanted to comment on the blog post quoted father above...
quote:They’d get all the pets and the people out of the building...
At least in the State of Florida, I believe pets are considered property, so there is not the same level of eagerness to save their lives compared to human life.
I haven't read the details of the story, but if there were pets in the building but no humans, it wouldn't have changed the outcome; they would have been essentially forced to let the animals burn.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You're also saying a lot about the libertarian POV which is simply not true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Like what?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The one time, maybe not. But if it becomes understood that they will put out your fire whether or not you paid, they yes, I definitely see people choosing not to pay. And then everybody loses.
How often in this county does the fire department show up to a fire and just watch the house burn? The fact that this became national news suggests, to me, that it probably is pretty rare. If this is an extremely rare occurance, then making an exception in this case, and allowing the guy to pay his fee after the fact, probably would not lead to any widespread assumption that its okay to skip the payment.
Conversely, if this happens all the time, then the city should threaten to withdraw individual fire coverage and demand the county pay for county-wide coverage. If such fires happen that frequently, the county government will likely comply. By offering an individual fire protection plan, the fire department is allowing the county officials to get away with not funding something that it is their responsibility to fund - which in turn ends up putting the city in a situation where they are morally compelled to help county individuals who don't pay. If the city says they simply can't do it this way, the county will face more pressure to figure out a legitimate fire plan.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For the record, there were pets involved
quote:A woman claims she lost her home, her three dogs and her cat because firefighters refused to help.
Boots -- like saying that liberatarians aren't bothered by a family losing their home.
quote: if this happens all the time, then the city should threaten to withdraw individual fire coverage and demand the county pay for county-wide coverage.
How exactly would a city "demand" that from the county?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If this is an extremely rare occurance, then making an exception in this case, and allowing the guy to pay his fee after the fact, probably would not lead to any widespread assumption that its okay to skip the payment.
Joe Fireman is not qualified to make that exception on the spot. He has to look at the immediate repercussions for disobeying an order and "misusing" government property.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Boots -- like saying that liberatarians aren't bothered by a family losing their home.
quote: if this happens all the time, then the city should threaten to withdraw individual fire coverage and demand the county pay for county-wide coverage.
How exactly would a city "demand" that from the county?
You didn't notice the particular libertarian I was quoting? If we, as a society want to do nothing about such situations, we have to get pretty callous in a hurry.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You didn't notice the particular libertarian I was quoting? If we, as a society want to do nothing about such situations, we have to get pretty callous in a hurry.
I noticed which Libertarian you were quoting. I also noticed that you immediately extrapolated her attitude to a problem with Libertarianism as a whole.
It's not a matter of wanting to do nothing about such situations. It's a matter of cost-benefit analysis, and nuanced opinions. Coming to what one believes is the best possible solution to a complex problem leaves plenty of room to feel bad for the people it adversely effects.
It's like watching the end of Star Trek II. You can understand the logic behind Spock's "good of the many" speech, and still cry when he dies. Anyone who thinks Libertarinism necessarily involves dancing on the graves of the less fortunate hasn't put much effort into understanding them.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
I must confess, I'm nonplussed that so many people here look at this story from such an ideological bent -- but not too nonplussed to throw out a few random thoughts!
a) I love my pets as much as anyone, but I'd never expect any person to risk his or her life to rescue one of them.
b)Firefighters can and often do risk injury and death fighting a structure fire. If I supervised a crew and we were at a structure that was being destroyed, and we didn't have a legal or contractual obligation to save it, I wouldn't risk someone else's safety to save property. Property can be replaced, people can't.
c)I'd really like to know just how "involved" the house was when they arrived. How good a chance did they have to save it?
d)I've traveled through a lot of counties in Tenn, VA, and WV. Some of these places are so rural that they don't have 911 systems. They don't have house numbers. GPS just shows long stretchs of green fields and two-lane state roads with numbers, no names. A lot of the residents know and will tell you there is no way an ambulance or a firetruck is going to get there in time to do any good.
e)Look at a place like Pocahontas County WV. Approx 800 households, fewer than 600 families, located on over 900 square miles. More than 15% of the households consist of one adult over 65, living alone. (I assume a retired person). Median household income is about 27,000$.
What if you went to a county like that and said, "We need a fire department. It's going to cost $900,000 a year, and every household has to pony up $1,100 a year to run it. Depending on where we put it, it may be a one-hour drive from your house. Okay, let's vote."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Baron -- well said.
FF -- people aren't just looking at a story from an ideological bent, they're responding to a question about ideology ("Is this what libertarian government would be like?").
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I don't see the problem. And the guy chose not to pay. He received reminders and ignored them. You make bad choices, there are often bad results.
This, for me, is the fundamental problem with Libertarianism. It requires all of us to become people who don't see the problem with this. People who aren't bothered by a family losing their home and everything they own when it could have been saved. It requires us to be the kind of people who can, if we bother to think about it at all, shrug and say that he- and his wife and kids and pets - got what they deserved so who cares.
You fail to see where that leads. If someone has a heart attack and dies because he chose to eat unhealthily, does that mean that society should have been there to force him to eat healthily? I mean, losing his life is a bigger deal than this guy losing his house, right?
And yes, I'm perfectly aware that there are already people out there who are trying to do just that; force others to eat in a way they view as healthy. Do you approve of that? If not, I'd like to know what distinction you make between that and what you just wrote. If you do approve of it, well, there isn't a lot that can be said to totalitarian types who think they know better than everyone else how others should live their lives.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And yes, this was a failure of Libertarianism. Why, since there was no county fire department, didn't private industry step in to fill the gap? That's how it is supposed to work, right?
That's how it generally works. That's how it can work. If it doesn't work that way, it's because people chose not to bother. In which case, again, that's a bad choice. And bad choices often lead to bad results.
Freedom doesn't guarantee success. It guarantees the freedom to seek success.
Kate, do you have kids? I have a 10 year old daughter who makes mistakes. But if I prevent every mistake, she'll never learn. Clearly, I'd prevent her from making dangerous mistakes, but the citizenry of the United States is not made up of children who have to be protected in that way. And what you're talking about leads to more than just protecting people from threats to their lives or homes. It leads to "protecting" them from themselves.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Boots -- like saying that liberatarians aren't bothered by a family losing their home.
quote: if this happens all the time, then the city should threaten to withdraw individual fire coverage and demand the county pay for county-wide coverage.
How exactly would a city "demand" that from the county?
You didn't notice the particular libertarian I was quoting? If we, as a society want to do nothing about such situations, we have to get pretty callous in a hurry.
I can feel bad for his wife (if he has one) and children (if he has them). I can't feel bad for someone who knew that everyone else was paying for fire protection, refused to pay even after being reminded, and lost out the hard way. That's a learning experience.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I can feel bad for his wife (if he has one) and children (if he has them). I can't feel bad for someone who knew that everyone else was paying for fire protection, refused to pay even after being reminded, and lost out the hard way. That's a learning experience.
I'm curious as to why you keep saying he was reminded to pay - the article linked by the OP makes no mention of that(and in fact implies that he just forgot to pay, not make a conscious decision not to pay). Where are you getting the info indicating that he was both reminded and decided not to pay?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: There are several serious divergences here that are directly caused by government interference and not the market. For example, not accepting some ludicrously high on-the-spot payment from the victim.
From a pragmatic perspective, I personally wouldn't take a promise to pay from this particular guy on the spot, at least not in the context of expecting it to be followed through on. I wouldn't even take a check and expect it to clear without trouble.
He strikes me as someone whose logic and and interpretations of his own responsibility are heavily flavoured by convenience. Once the fire was put out, I'd be spending a lot more money to get paid, I bet.
----- Edited to add:
quote:"I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong," said Gene Cranick , from one of multiple news sources
and this:
Mind you, if I had the means to help and were there, I don't think I would have been able to stand by without doing anything. I just would be hauling a grain of salt around while carrying the "I'll pay whatever it takes!" claim.
Lives are messy. People do forget, even if reminded. Sometimes people are relieved to forget, because life is just too much, at times. Which is why in matters of import, there has to be a better system than this.
[ October 07, 2010, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Mucus, I'm missing something. That report says 528 households in Obion county. 13 cents per household per year nets less than 70$ per year. That doesn't get you a lot of fire fighting equipment.
I suspect they mean 13 cents per household per unit of assessed property value. I can't find that in the report.
A different question: once that report was presented, was a vote or referendum conducted? If so, what did the county residents decide they wanted?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Flying Fish, I understand your point about rural areas.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's analogous to this situation. The county population is in excess of 32,000, and according to one source I read (can't find, not enough time), there are 8 municipal fire departments in the county.
Sure, the cities are densely populated and probably skew the population density pretty badly.
The county I live in has only a third of that, for population, and covers more area. This situation wouldn't happen. The government of Olbion County, including the city government of South Fulton, dropped the ball on fire protection.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Flying Fish: Sorry, I deleted the report after reading it since it did seem inconsistent. The numbers do seem messed up (which I guess is one symptom of a dysfunctional government). I think the census-based calculation is a better estimate and came out to $116 per household. (But they weren't necessarily comparable with each other because there were calculations having to do with property tax assessments on commercial buildings)
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Mucus, thanks. I think another point might have to do with the affluence of the county.
I once had to explain to an elderly woman in Southwest Virginia that she had to pay a 911 fee on her phone bill which was going to total about $6 per year. She was almost in tears: she lived on about $4000 per year in government aid, so 6$ was worth arguing over. Furthermore, she lived (by choice) in a cabin on a mountain that had belonged to her family for generations. She HAD called 911 before, a couple of times -- and they had never showed up.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I consider myself someone with an above average sense of empathy. However, this story did not seem to evoke the emotional response from me as it did to others like Strider. I wasn't sure what caused the incongruity, so was not responding to this discussion (and its analog on the other forum).
I think I finally figured it out: It's just property. His house burned down, which is sad, but all he lost were things. He didn't pay the 75 bucks, probably so that he could buy other things with it. He gambled and lost. That's all.
Does he have insurance? If not, again he gambled and lost.
If he did have insurance, then he'll get his home back, and have learned a valuable lesson to boot.
To me its like if a tornado wipes out a particular neighborhood and an insurance company only pays out to folks who paid their premiums. Well duh. It's the same exact result. Those who paid extra to get their property protected get that protection, those that don't, tough luck.
You wouldn't say that the insurance company was doing a disservice to their fellow man, would you?
Edit: My empathy increases quite a bit if you take the "I just forgot" at face value. Certainly I've been know to forget things like that myself.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenos:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I can feel bad for his wife (if he has one) and children (if he has them). I can't feel bad for someone who knew that everyone else was paying for fire protection, refused to pay even after being reminded, and lost out the hard way. That's a learning experience.
I'm curious as to why you keep saying he was reminded to pay - the article linked by the OP makes no mention of that(and in fact implies that he just forgot to pay, not make a conscious decision not to pay). Where are you getting the info indicating that he was both reminded and decided not to pay?
quote:Vowell said people always think they will never be in a situation where they will need rural fire protection, but he said City of South Fulton personnel actually go above and beyond in trying to offer the service. He said the city mails out notices to customers in the specified rural coverage area, with coverage running from July 1 of one year to July 1 the next year.
At the end of the enrollment month of July, the city goes a step further and makes phone calls to rural residents who have not responded to the mail-out.
"These folks were called and notified," Vowell said. "I want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to get it and be aware it's available. It's been there for 20 years, but it’s very important to follow up."
Mayor Crocker added, "It's my understanding with talking with the firefighters that these folks had received their bill and they had also contacted them by phone."
(Vowell is South Fulton city manager Jeff Vowell.)
quote:"Gene Cranick Farms....big time farmer in the area....just got a call from a friend in the area....seems all those government farms subsidies wasn't enough cash to pay for the Fire Protection Fee...10 months late by the way....they are due in Jan of every year and many notices are mailed out and notice in the newspaper too...
Buddy Jones Road...this guy owned most of the land around the Country Club....not some poor guy at all."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You can think that the guy made a bad choice and still "see a problem" with him losing his home. If we couldn't, we wouldn't be having the conversation. You can think that there are some things that society - all of us collectively - can and should address because catastrophes do happen. And you can think that without believing that society should address everything.
You want pure libertarianism, get used to watching homes burn when we could have saved them. And get used to what getting used to that makes us.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If you want pure libertarianism, get used to watching entire cities burn and/or free riders having their house fires put out because fire coverage in populated areas absolutely requires the response.
Failing that, good luck telling fire that the 'right' to swing its arm ends at your house.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This isn't just about fire.
On the radio the other day, there was a story about some controversey because the aid to New Orleans were not rebuilding homes that had been leveled by wind instead of by flood.
The deal with the federal aid is that it 1) picks up what insurance doesn't cover (no insurance? You should have. It would have covered it.), and 2) does not spend more to rebuild a house than the house was originally worth.
Even the most basic of homeowners' insurance covers wind damage. Homeowners that did not have homeowner insurance are not being covered, after the crisis, as if they had.
Often it was people who had had the house in the family for generations and owned it outright. If there's a mortgage, there's homeowners' insurance, but when there isn't, it is on the owner to decide if they are willing to risk a disaster and lose everything. Often, the owners have land assets but no cash flow, which means the house is often not well taken care of and is worth less than the homes of people who spend to maintain them.
It's the same situation, amplified by millions of dollars, because that's how many people went without homeowners' insurance.
Is it right that taxes go to rebuild homes when the owners didn't even bother with basic homeowners' insurance? Is it only right because this is from Katrina? But what about other storms? If it is right, why even bother with homeowners' insurance at all?
What about paying more to rebuild than the home was worth, on top of all the aid that has already been handed out? Is it right that taxes go to build someone a house? Several someones? Thousands of houses? Because that's how many are affected here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Property replacement and damage coverage is and should be a different issue. Firefighters will put out all fires and maybe even save your property; they're not there (and neither is their funding) to rebuild what couldn't be saved.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's all just money.
The people who don't have insurance are often very poor, and they see one neighborhood over the government rebuilding those homes, but not their homes.
It's all solved by money - money to rebuild, money to fund the fire department, it all comes from taxes.
Choosing to NOT pay into the Fire Department fund and expecting to be covered as if you had is exactly the same as choosing to not buy homeowners' insurance and expecting to be covered as if you had.
quote:Firefighters will put out all fires
Clearly not. Not when the local laws state that if you refuse to pay for coverage, you aren't covered.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think that comparing this to repayment insurance is the wrong to look at it. It's more akin to medical insurance as a prerequisite to medical care.
We've made the decision that we don't deny people medical care because they don't have insurance. I think this is the right decision, given our circumstances. But this decision comes with very heavy costs.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That is a better analogy for the emergency kind of situation, but that involves human life, and this involves only property. Medical care even without insurance does come with tremendous costs, in terms of money, which we have decided is worth it, because what is saved is life.
Here, life was not at risk; only property. Losing your home is hard and gut-wrenching, but it's just a house and it's only stuff.
This isn't the way I'd set things up, but since this is the way it had been and the home owner decided to take the risk, it's the right outcome for the circumstance.
Maybe the county will change the way they fund the fire department now.
---
The wrinkle in the Katrina rebuilding business: the people who didn't have insurance are overwhelmingly black and poor. It is entirely possible/probable that the house hadn't been insured for a generation, if ever, and the current owners didn't even realize that it should be. Does that change anything in there for you?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Firefighters will put out all fires
Clearly not. Not when the local laws state that if you refuse to pay for coverage, you aren't covered.
And changing it so that there's complete mandated coverage, covered via taxation, fixes that, and keeps property replacement a separate issue.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree that that arrangement makes the most sense to me.
That is not, however, the arrangement that existed in the county in question.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:We've made the decision that we don't deny people medical care because they don't have insurance.
In fact, we will. Try getting chemotherapy for your cancer without insurance. What we won't deny is really basic stuff like casts for a broken arm.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Have any of the people in this thread arguing that it's "only a home and only stuff" ever actually lost their home? Whether through a natural disaster or a fire? I have a very close friend whose house burnt to the ground and it was devastating for him and his wife. Saying "it's all just stuff" is easy to do from our armchairs, and is actually something I agree with 100%. But it doesn't actually make going through the experience any easier when it happens to you (unless you're a Buddhist monk of some sort and are really, truly at peace with whatever happens). That philosophy may not make it any easier when you wake up in the middle of the night regularly from the psychological damage that event inflicted. I'm sure watching the house burn while people with the power to stop it stand around and do nothing is not exactly beneficial for mental well being either. But who knows, maybe tonight when this family is in their motel room wearing their red cross donated clothing they'll be in fine spirits because all the stuff they lost was meaningless anyway.
I acknowledge the complexity of this situation, the precedent that would be set if they put out fires for homeowners who haven't paid and the importance of learning from our mistakes, etc...but the world that says, "well, fair is fair, lesson learned" is not a world I want to live in. Conversely, the argument that says letting his house burn down actually will increase the well being of people in the long run because of the behavior it will promote is certainly a valid argument, but one I disagree with in the end anyway.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I agree that that arrangement makes the most sense to me.
That is not, however, the arrangement that existed in the county in question.
Exactly. The county doesn't have firefighters. Just fire-chasers on loan from an actually covered area.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:We've made the decision that we don't deny people medical care because they don't have insurance.
In fact, we will. Try getting chemotherapy for your cancer without insurance. What we won't deny is really basic stuff like casts for a broken arm.
And sadly, too many of us "don't see the problem with that."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
try getting chemo with insurance. well, at least that gets better with reform implementation.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Conversely, the argument that says letting his house burn down actually will increase the well being of people in the long run because of the behavior it will promote is certainly a valid argument, but one I disagree with in the end anyway.
If you disagree with that estimate of the tradeoffs involved, that's a separate matter entirely. But if you genuinely thought the world would in fact be better in the long-run due to this short-term loss for one guy, what would you do then? It seems to me that the tradeoffs are a question for empirical discussion, a point on which reasonable men might differ. But the accusation that libertarians don't care is unjust. (I'll except Lisa. We all know that she doesn't care; but it's not because she's a libertarian. She's just... special that way. If she were a hardcore Stalinist, she would not-care just as much about the fate of twenty million kulaks. Can't make True Socialism without breaking a few reactionary heads.)
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:We've made the decision that we don't deny people medical care because they don't have insurance.
In fact, we will. Try getting chemotherapy for your cancer without insurance. What we won't deny is really basic stuff like casts for a broken arm.
And sadly, too many of us "don't see the problem with that."
How do you define "too many?" How many people around here do you think have no problem with people being denied chemo, for any reason?
It's easy to feel comfortable with your point of view when you've convinced yourself that everyone who disagrees with you loves watching poor people die of cancer. But it's a cop-out, and it's not fair to you or your ideological opponents.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ok. To many of us don't see enough of a problem with that to fix it. Is that fair?
Note. I am not saying anyone is gleeful about it.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:But the accusation that libertarians don't care is unjust.
Sure, but I haven't made that accusation.
I have a lot of sympathies for libertarian principles, but I think that libertarianism as a philosophy has the propensity to be one that encourages an uncaring attitude for others. And those attitudes are easily arrived at since while libertarians can certainly be good people, I think you need libertarianism plus something else to get there.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Lisa: Your links prove he was notified. They do nothing to prove he REFUSED to pay. Note that he has paid the fee in past years, and claims that he forgot to pay it this year. It's possible to forget despite having been notified. As usual, you are putting words in people's mouths.
Flying Fish wrote:
quote:c)I'd really like to know just how "involved" the house was when they arrived. How good a chance did they have to save it?
According to the video, the house was not burning when the firefighters arrived to put out the fire on the neighbor's property. It's not clear to me whether the house was involved after they finished putting out the other part of the fire, but it is clear that the firefighters literally watched as the house burned down.
There is an argument here that if the fire department makes an exception for someone who's house is burning, that people will refuse to pay because their houses will be protected anyway. As if having your house burn down is an everyday occurrence.
As I said in my previous post, fire departments traditionally have raised money through fundraisers, and there are plenty of people who give more than their fair share to the district, because they think it's the right thing to do. Likewise, some people give money to the public library, or to the battered women's shelter, but fail to give to the fire department. A civilized community recognizes that individuals can't be held responsible to anticipate every organization that needs funding. That's why we have government in the first place. Taxes make a lot more sense than a fee for service policy that's designed to be punitive.
Second, Fundraisers are often for a particular piece of equipment, or because of a budget shortfall prevents hiring the necessary personnel. The fire department will point out to the public that they will not BE ABLE to effectively fight a fire, and ask the public for the money to buy the necessary equipment.
So let's say not enough people pay into the coffers, and the department has a pumper, but not a tanker. The fire department shows up at the Cranick farm and says "where's the pond? We need a source of water." There is no pond, and the house burns down. Or the town has one tanker, but it's already fighting a fire, so they say "sorry Mr. Cranick, but the equipment isn't available."
These are all legitimate consequences, and in general, the public is aware of such, and makes the best arrangements that can be made given the available support. I don't know of any fire district that couldn't be made better if more money was available, but as long as a reasonable effort is made, you can't really point the finger. But funding of the fire department did not come into play in this case, because the equipment and personnel were in place. It wouldn't have cost much more to put out the fire, so why didn't they? Because of a stupid policy that wasn't based in the reality of the situation, and because of stubborn leadership that was too thickheaded to admit they were wrong.
Finally, the analogy keeps being raised that Cranick is like a guy that doesn't pay his insurance, and then wants the insurance company to pay for his car after it's been wrecked. WHAT? The house hadn't burned down yet. I'm searching for a good analogy here, and the best I can come up with is that Cranick didn't pay for an alignment, his tires wore down and now he's asking someone to put new tires on the car so he doesn't blow a tire and have an accident. The mechanic refuses to put new tires on the car because the struts are still bad, so the tire blows and the car is totaled. Not a great analogy, but a hell of a lot better than the one that was offered.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's insurance because a fire department involves risk. Even having a fire department is a hedge against the risk of fire. Opting out of joining in the collective hedge against the risk means trading the certain loss against the risk of a gigantic loss.
Insurance is a hedge against risk.
The model that is actually a problem is medical insurance, because medical insurance is not just for risks, but more like paying in installments for eventual certainties. Almost everyone gets medical care before they die, but not everyone will have a disaster to their home.
-----
I have no doubt that losing a home and your possessions is a horrible thing. But it isn't like losing a life, and that distinction is important enough that I think medical care for people who don't opt in to sharing the collective risk is worth the cost, but protecting property is not.
This guy had six months and multiple reminders to opt in, and he chose to bear the risk alone and not opt in. That's what happened.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I understand why insurance was chosen as the analogy, but it breaks down with the "car has already crashed" thing. The house hadn't burned down, so it was a bad analogy. You can always buy insurance up to the minute before an accident happens. If you had a premonition that your uninsured car was about to be totaled and you went out an bought insurance, the insurance company would sell you the policy, but that isn't a very good analogy either.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I wonder if in the course of putting out the fire at a home that had paid for the service the fire spread to a non-covered house the non-covered house's owner would be able to make a case against the fire department...
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I am massively in favor of making fire departments a tax rather than an opt-in (or even an opt-out) scenario as I think fire is a collective problem ala the fire spreading from home to home that was mentioned before. I am also a believer in the choices made in this scenario given the context of the situation as it seems most people here are.
quote:These are all legitimate consequences, and in general, the public is aware of such, and makes the best arrangements that can be made given the available support. I don't know of any fire district that couldn't be made better if more money was available, but as long as a reasonable effort is made, you can't really point the finger. But funding of the fire department did not come into play in this case, because the equipment and personnel were in place. It wouldn't have cost much more to put out the fire, so why didn't they? Because of a stupid policy that wasn't based in the reality of the situation, and because of stubborn leadership that was too thickheaded to admit they were wrong.
I disagree with this paragraph. First, there was a budget issue: future payments. What if they showed up and discovered that though they had the tanker truck to use it in this fire they'd have to destroy it afterwards? That's basically what people are saying. Just because they had the resources for this particular fire doesn't mean there wasn't a resource problem. And again he had an opportunity to make the arraignments necessary given the fire-fighting set-up: pay the $75.
"Because of a stupid policy that wasn't based in the reality of the situation, and because of stubborn leadership that was too thickheaded to admit they were wrong."
Which stupid policy. Along with the majority here I agree not having a county-protection system set-up (payed via the tax) was a stupid policy, and that whoever was in charge of that did make a dumb choice. Any other implication (just about) I disagree with. After having read through this thread I don't think anyone knows who made that choice: was it a vote, was it a choice of the governor, the county commissioner? We don't know, but once the decision is made we have to live in the reality it created.
Hobbes Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:and he chose to bear the risk alone and not opt in
Once again, you're making assumptions.
I join a farm cooperative each year. Last year (maybe the year before, I don't remember) we joined, and my wife and I were sure we'd paid the fee. We went all year collecting our vegetables and doing our hours of labor, and several times we were asked if we'd paid. We responded that we had, until someone worded it differently "we don't seem to have a record of your check."
So we looked in quicken, and couldn't find the check. We wrote one immediately. Just an honest mistake, but these things happen.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I understand why insurance was chosen as the analogy, but it breaks down with the "car has already crashed" thing. The house hadn't burned down, so it was a bad analogy. You can always buy insurance up to the minute before an accident happens. If you had a premonition that your uninsured car was about to be totaled and you went out an bought insurance, the insurance company would sell you the policy, but that isn't a very good analogy either.
It breaks down for two reasons: the "car" was in the middle of crashing, which isn't really a thing. No one has ever tried to take out an insurance policy on the car in the middle of a crash. Or at least with the hope of having completed it before the end of the crash. And two, this is preventative where car insurance is paying to clean-up. The money for insurance goes to paying you back your money when you need it (kind of) where here the money you pay is not correlated to what you would lose, but to what it takes to keep from losing it.
Hobbes Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
In any case we agree that the analogy breaks down.
quote:What if they showed up and discovered that though they had the tanker truck to use it in this fire they'd have to destroy it afterwards? That's basically what people are saying.
What are you talking about? The trucks and personnel were already there. And even if they weren't, fire trucks are not single use items. Unlike much else these days, they are built to last.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
The point is that there was a funding issue based on the idea that putting out this fire would diminish their ability to put out other fires due to minimal funding. Which I "equivilized" (this should be a word) into your analogy as a tanker truck breaking through use.
Hobbes Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:try getting chemo with insurance.
I have. I did.
Some things to think about, from the perspective of a firefighter's wife:
This is not uncommon. In many cases, municipalities will have a "mutual aid" agreement which allows them to put out fires in another municipality. If there is no mutual-aid agreement, then they sometimes do have to watch things burn
Firefighting is a dangerous business. Firefighters get hurt, often. If they are fighting a fire in a home they are not supposed to be fighting a fire in - then their own insurance may not cover them if they are injured.
Most firefighters can't stand to watch things burn. I remember an issue several years ago where firefighters, due to a nonexistent mutual aid agreement, had to watch a building burn. They called their chiefs and begged to be able to go help, but were told no. If they or their equipment had been damaged, said the chief, there would have been no coverage.
Pets are not people. Firefighters are instructed never to endanger themselves by entering a burning building to save a pet. If they must go inside anyway for a search, or to put out the fire or vent the building and they have the opportunity to rescue a pet in the performance of other duties, then fine. But they are not to risk themselves for an animal.
I feel sad that a home was lost, but I am also unable to muster much sympathy. I mean, he knew the possible consequences of not paying. As someone already said - he rolled the dice, and he lost.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
quote: I feel sad that a home was lost, but I am also unable to muster much sympathy. I mean, he knew the possible consequences of not paying. As someone already said - he rolled the dice, and he lost.
This is a viewpoint I want to rail against, because it implies intent to not pay as opposed to negligence to not pay. He's paid for years in the past, and he claims he simply forgot to pay. There isn't a lot of evidence saying he chose not to pay, and people keep bringing up "Man he got notices he must have remembered!" But I'm sure we've all forgotten to do things after getting notices, and the 75$ for firefighting isn't exactly the most important bill one looks to pay when they have to pay their bills.
To say that this isn't a tragic accident that doesn't deserve our sympathy because of a failure to read notices to me seems wrong. Its an excuse to avoid feeling bad about a situation. Its quite plausible to have an intent to pay and forget about it. A much less expensive example is fines from the library. I fully intend to pay/return books on time, and they send me reminders too, but I usually forget and end up paying quite a bit more. But to say I don't intend on paying the fine is a far cry from simply forgetting to, and the two differences carry a significant weight when it comes to determining our responses to the action.
And if there was truly an intent to not pay, then this event changes from "the tragic failure of a bad government policy" to "A person making a bad call", and the two require different responses. But I haven't seen any evidence to support the latter position.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: There are several serious divergences here that are directly caused by government interference and not the market. For example, not accepting some ludicrously high on-the-spot payment from the victim.
From a pragmatic perspective, I personally wouldn't take a promise to pay from this particular guy on the spot, at least not in the context of expecting it to be followed through on. I wouldn't even take a check and expect it to clear without trouble.
He strikes me as someone whose logic and and interpretations of his own responsibility are heavily flavoured by convenience. Once the fire was put out, I'd be spending a lot more money to get paid, I bet.
That's a very good point.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:To say that this isn't a tragic accident that doesn't deserve our sympathy because of a failure to read notices to me seems wrong. Its an excuse to avoid feeling bad about a situation. Its quite plausible to have an intent to pay and forget about it. A much less expensive example is fines from the library. I fully intend to pay/return books on time, and they send me reminders too, but I usually forget and end up paying quite a bit more. But to say I don't intend on paying the fine is a far cry from simply forgetting to, and the two differences carry a significant weight when it comes to determining our responses to the action.
And if there was truly an intent to not pay, then this event changes from "the tragic failure of a bad government policy" to "A person making a bad call", and the two require different responses. But I haven't seen any evidence to support the latter position.
I agree, the loss of one's house for the honest failure (i.e. forgetting) to pay a $75 fee is a very major consequence. Which to me is all the more reason to move to a taxed based system. However, I'm not sure what response you're referring to at the end of your post. The firefighter's response, the cities response? Our response as 'spectators' (so to speak)? I don't think it should impact either of the first two. The final one I agree, though I'm less concerned with the specific case than the overall principle (at least for the purposes of this thread). The consequences can't be different for someone that forgot to pay than for someone who choose[s] not to.
Hobbes Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenos:
quote: I feel sad that a home was lost, but I am also unable to muster much sympathy. I mean, he knew the possible consequences of not paying. As someone already said - he rolled the dice, and he lost.
This is a viewpoint I want to rail against, because it implies intent to not pay as opposed to negligence to not pay. He's paid for years in the past, and he claims he simply forgot to pay. There isn't a lot of evidence saying he chose not to pay, and people keep bringing up "Man he got notices he must have remembered!" But I'm sure we've all forgotten to do things after getting notices, and the 75$ for firefighting isn't exactly the most important bill one looks to pay when they have to pay their bills.
To say that this isn't a tragic accident that doesn't deserve our sympathy because of a failure to read notices to me seems wrong. Its an excuse to avoid feeling bad about a situation. Its quite plausible to have an intent to pay and forget about it. A much less expensive example is fines from the library. I fully intend to pay/return books on time, and they send me reminders too, but I usually forget and end up paying quite a bit more. But to say I don't intend on paying the fine is a far cry from simply forgetting to, and the two differences carry a significant weight when it comes to determining our responses to the action.
And if there was truly an intent to not pay, then this event changes from "the tragic failure of a bad government policy" to "A person making a bad call", and the two require different responses. But I haven't seen any evidence to support the latter position.
Would you say the same thing if he had "meant to pay" his life insurance bill? Health insurance? Car insurance?
Part of being an adult is paying your bills. I can't say I've never forgotten -- but when I forget, there are CONSEQUENCES. He didn't want to deal with the consequences of forgetting. And it just doesn't work that way.
This is a completely separate question from whether allowing municipalities to set up opt-in firefighter systems is ok.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Some consequences aren't worth it. There's a limit to what is reasonable.
Which means things should be set up so such a thing cannot happen in the first place.
And yet, this lack of sympathy is ridiculous. The man's house burned down, and nobody stopped it. This should not be.
By which I mean, not that they should have just gone ahead and done it under the current system. What I mean, again, is that this system should not be allowed to exist. There has to be a way that doesn't cause needless destruction due to something so easily overlooked.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Some consequences aren't worth it. There's a limit to what is reasonable.
Which means things should be set up so such a thing cannot happen in the first place.
Precisely.
Hobbes Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Would you say the same thing if he had "meant to pay" his life insurance bill? Health insurance? Car insurance?
Part of being an adult is paying your bills. I can't say I've never forgotten -- but when I forget, there are CONSEQUENCES. He didn't want to deal with the consequences of forgetting. And it just doesn't work that way.
This is a completely separate question from whether allowing municipalities to set up opt-in firefighter systems is ok.
If a person fails to pay medical insurance because he forgets to, and he dies as a result(I don't believe this could happen, though), we do not say that it was acceptable. I would hope that people would recognize it as a tragedy. Should the parties involved acted differently? I'm not suggesting that. But to say that an event is not tragic, that there is no sympathy deserved, because a person made a mistake, is to me very callous. And that is a view point people in this thread are putting out there, and I frankly find disturbing.
But the fault does not lie on the firefighters for failing to prevent this scenario, rather, as many people before me have mentioned, the failing of a poor policy.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm going to start a "Favor From MightyCow Service", which must be paid ahead of time, $10 a year. It covers all favors from me saying please and thank you, up to saving your life.
If I see you drowning, and you haven't paid up, I would not lend a hand. You roll the dice, better send me my $10, otherwise nobody's going to pay, if they see me giving out favors for free.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:But the fault does not lie on the firefighters for failing to prevent this scenario, rather, as many people before me have mentioned, the failing of a poor policy.
Nah, it's both. People in emergency services shouldn't be allowed to say they were just following orders anymore than soldiers can.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Depending on the firefighters' insurers, they may well have risked their lives and equipment with no possibility of coverage if they rushed in to aid someone without a contractual agreement. That's a fair bit to ask.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: How many people around here do you think have no problem with people being denied chemo, for any reason? [/QB]
I have a problem with it, but I recognize that we have limited resources. If we have X amount of chemo and Y people need it, there's a good chance Y will be bigger than X. I don't like it, but I'd rather find the most efficient way to deliver the chemo rather than rail about there not being enough.
I feel the same with the fire here. If we want firefighters to handle these blazes no matter what, it sounds like we need to back up a step and change the rules on their insurance. You're not just asking them to fight a fire. In this case, you're asking them to fight a fire that - due to someone else's negigence - would leave them with no protection if they get hurt. That's unfair to ask, in my opinion.
As for how the county should handle it, it sounds like it's a funding issue. Should the state step in and create a rural fire department tax so the cities are now subsidising the sparesely populated, poorer counties? Should the feds so that eastern states are paying for the plains states? Where do we draw the line on fair?
As a semi-rural gal, I feel there's something to be said for making it on your own without government help. Yes, that means sometimes you take your lumps. But then you dust yourself off and get back to work. Maybe that means the family's split up sleeping with several friends and relatives for a month while they get the insurance paperwork sorted out. Renting's tough in the country, but they'll find something livable while the house gets rebuilt. It sucks, but they'll get through.
As a Southerner, I've been conditioned to find something noble in struggle. Life's hard, but we can conquer it. So while I sympathize with the guy who lost his home, I can't help but feel he'll rally and come out ok in the end. Or he'll move to the city. One of the two. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jenos: If a person fails to pay medical insurance because he forgets to, and he dies as a result(I don't believe this could happen, though), we do not say that it was acceptable. I would hope that people would recognize it as a tragedy.
Almost no one in this thread is saying they deserve no sympathy. I'm certainly not! They lost their home, and even worse, had to watch it burn. That's unquestionably horrible.
But to blame the firefighters is, IMO, absolutely unconscionable. I blame the homeowner for his irresponsibility, but far more I blame whatever state and municipal laws allowed this opt-in situation to exist in the first place. HOWEVER, given the situation that existed, the firefighters acted in the only way they could.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Nah, it's both. People in emergency services shouldn't be allowed to say they were just following orders anymore than soldiers can.
This is ridiculous. We don't want soldiers to be able to say, "Just following orders," because when they do, sometimes people are killed. Sometimes war crimes are committed. And sometimes, they die themselves. It's not at all the same thing in emergency services. In emergency services, you need structure-they're not vigilantes. It's not City of Heroes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust:
quote:But the fault does not lie on the firefighters for failing to prevent this scenario, rather, as many people before me have mentioned, the failing of a poor policy.
Nah, it's both. People in emergency services shouldn't be allowed to say they were just following orders anymore than soldiers can.
Soldiers very much can say that they were just following orders as an accepted defense. If I remember correctly, the bar for this not being valid has been established as if a reasonable person could obviously see that the orders given were manifestly illegal, in which case it is their duty to disobey them. However, absent this, a soldier is obligated to follow their orders, even ones that they really don't agree with.
So, say a soldier with firefighting equipment and training were ordered to let a house burn when he could save it. In this case, it would be illegal for him to try to fight the fire.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: ... They lost their home, and even worse, had to watch it burn. That's unquestionably horrible.
Had to watch (indirectly?) their two dogs and cat burn. Thats the part that would leave me with trauma.
(Although I stand by my initial reaction that this is much more a case of a dysfunctional government than individual firefighters. A government that cannot reasonably manage fire control, private or public, white or black(cat) is seriously messed up. This is perhaps acceptable in a developing country or a prehistoric society, but not in the developed world)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There are issues which come down to a problem with the government, but this sounds a lot more like a problem with the citizens of the county.
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
Public statement from one of the 7 municipal fire chiefs in Obion County:
A short summary: subscription type fire protection has been in place for about 50 years. Municipal fire departments have wanted the county government to establish a rural fire program funded by taxpayers in the county. I still can't find any news stories saying whether and when any ballot initiatives/ bond issues etc. have been presented to the county residents.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I didn't read all of page 2, but has anyone addressed the possibility that the firefighters could have been liable for water damage they would have caused in the course of putting out a fire in a non contracted house? Granted they could have offered the homeowner a release on that as easily as any fee settlement.
Fires are put out so they don't spread, but putting them out destroys a lot of what remains.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I didn't read all of page 2, but has anyone addressed the possibility that the firefighters could have been liable for water damage they would have caused in the course of putting out a fire in a non contracted house?
A lot of strange things and undue liabilities could have happened as a result of the firefighters disobeying orders and not fighting the fire.
I think nearly everyone is saying, or at least can agree, that the members of the fire department here were put in a situation they shouldn't have been put in, where they're sitting in front of a house they are under orders not to put out. And very few people are callous and blind to externalities enough not to see a problem with the way this played out. Like I had posited much earlier, this is really a failure on a larger, governmental level — a county without universal fire coverage confronted with the free rider problem.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Wow. Olbion's county commission is full of fail.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tstorm: Wow. Olbion's county commission is full of fail.
Local governments often are.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Woah. Not too often I find myself advocating an (what I consider) purely ideological stance, but I'm in complete agreement with Strider when he asked on page 1:
quote: How in the hell do you not act out of goodwill to your fellow man?
Sorry, all the rest is BS. Had I been the firefighter on scene calling the shots, that fire would have been put out.
In some cases it really is better to ask forgiveness (of the system) than permission. Let the lawyers deal with suing the homeowner afterwards for failure to pay.
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Forget about all the facts of this story. about the lack of a fire department, about the $75 fee to be covered. Imagine you are a human being standing next to a man's house which is burning to the ground, and in your hands you have the means to put out the fire. How in the hell do you not act out of goodwill to your fellow man?
That sums it up for me. How appalling.
In older cities, you can still see insurance badges on buildings. If you had paid you dues to the insurance company then you were covered int he case of fire. If not, let it burn. I'm so glad that in the intervening 200 years we've moved on. Unless you live in Tennessee... Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Forget about all the facts of this story. about the lack of a fire department, about the $75 fee to be covered. Imagine you are a human being standing next to a man's house which is burning to the ground, and in your hands you have the means to put out the fire. How in the hell do you not act out of goodwill to your fellow man?
This has been over and pretty much resolved, but the truth is, if you're the human being standing next to the burning house, and you're actually familiar with the realities involved with what's really at risk in putting out that fire on a strictly unsupported volunteer basis? It might not be that hard not to at all.
Because 'goodwill' goes a lot of ways. But others have explained that already.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: Woah. Not too often I find myself advocating an (what I consider) purely ideological stance, but I'm in complete agreement with Strider when he asked on page 1:
quote: How in the hell do you not act out of goodwill to your fellow man?
Sorry, all the rest is BS. Had I been the firefighter on scene calling the shots, that fire would have been put out.
In some cases it really is better to ask forgiveness (of the system) than permission. Let the lawyers deal with suing the homeowner afterwards for failure to pay.
And you would be out of a job, and probably sued.
People have house fires all of the time. Are they suppose to drive out of town out of their jurisdiction to every house fire in the state? Because that is basically what they do. They leave their own area of responsibility and put out fires in other places, as long as the property owners agree to help pay for their services.
If I was the municipality, I would make sure that this was the last year I offered the out of area coverage option. Let them take care of their own houses however they want.
Why should MY money go to provide services to YOU when YOU aren't willing to help pay for it, when I have no legal obligation to do so.
What is one of the firefighters got hurt putting out the fire? Against orders, without a legal obligation to do so, maybe against the legal requirements? Who pays his medical bills, his lost income, his families bills? What happens if one of the trucks breaks, or a pump seizes? Who pays the repairs, which could be very expensive?
While what happened sucks, and no one would wish it on anyone, it isn't the firefighters fault at all, and they did nothing wrong.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If I was the neighbor I would sue for any fire or water damage to my property. I paid my fees and if the firefighters had fought the fire before it entered my property, there would have been zero damage to my stuff.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0:
quote: How in the hell do you not act out of goodwill to your fellow man?
Sorry, all the rest is BS. Had I been the firefighter on scene calling the shots, that fire would have been put out. [/QB]
And if you were that firefighter, you would now be unemployed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not only would you perhaps be unemployed, but your department might be facing a serious lawsuit, and others in it might be facing considerable economic hardship, as well as the town or county.
Again, as others have explained, sometimes goodwill is complicated when you have responsibilities, Godric.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Why should MY money go to provide services to YOU when YOU aren't willing to help pay for it, when I have no legal obligation to do so.
This has been asked and answered: Because you have a moral obligation to do so. Also, as I've pointed out before, the majority of the cost of operating a fire department is having the equipment available, not actually fighting the fire. And given that the grass fire was burning for 2 hours before it reached the house, firefighters didn't need to endanger themselves by fighting a house fire.
Also, this is from Obion County's 911 web page:
quote:Obion county, which covers 555 square miles, has 8 municipal fire departments. The County of Obion spends no tax dollars on fire service. There is NO county fire department, which means NO RURAL FIRE COVERAGE for structure fires exists. [Note: The Obion County Volunteer Rescue Squad is available to respond to grass and vehicle fires, but are not equipped to respond to or fight structure fires.]
Again, this was a grass fire for two hours before the house was involved.
quote:And you would be out of a job, and probably sued.
How do you fire a volunteer? According to the article above, even the municipal fire chief is a volunteer. Sued? Maybe, but again, sued for what? The equipment was already on site, the firefighters were volunteer, the only difference is the cost of fuel and run time on the pumps. Which Cranick had already offered to pay for.
quote:Part of being an adult is paying your bills. I can't say I've never forgotten -- but when I forget, there are CONSEQUENCES. He didn't want to deal with the consequences of forgetting. And it just doesn't work that way.
Rivka, be careful of assuming his intent. He says he forgot, I've been looking all over for a statement from the fire department that says anything that implies that there was any intent to "forget," such as a statement from the person who called asking for payment that he seemed reluctant to pay. Can't find it.
Now as to forgetting to pay his insurance, this is more like medical insurance than car insurance. If I fail to pay my medical insurance and I get sick, I can go to the doctor and pay cash. Which he offered to do. How does that imply that he didn't want to deal with the consequences?
quote:From a pragmatic perspective, I personally wouldn't take a promise to pay from this particular guy on the spot, at least not in the context of expecting it to be followed through on. I wouldn't even take a check and expect it to clear without trouble.
First of all, a municipality has lots of ways to collect debts. They are city hall after all, they can garnish wages or bank accounts, or even issue a lien on the house. If you're talking about a potential tenant, or someone taking out a mortgage, etc, you have time to worry about whether the guy's credit is good. Here there is little time, and you're balancing what has been valued as a $75 fee against the value of a home, the lives of pets, and possibly human lives. You can't know how the fire will play out. As it is, their neglect put the neighbor's property at risk and could easily have turned into a wildfire that might have caused damages over a large area. The decision not to fight the fire and deal with the costs later was a stupid gamble, even if the moral issue isn't considered.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: And if you were that firefighter, you would now be unemployed.
With the same amount of coverage that this story got, you'd be a news hero. I could live with that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: And if you were that firefighter, you would now be unemployed.
With the same amount of coverage that this story got, you'd be a news hero. I could live with that.
Possibly but maybe not, there's no way you can know if your story of heroism will actually get picked up. It's not worth the risk.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: mph,
The guy has paid the fee in the past, and he claims he forgot to pay this year. You're starting off on the wrong foot by claiming you know his intent.
Then there's the many other problems with this story, such as the fact that the guy offered to pay "whatever it takes" to put the fire out, or that the fire department was present (even fighting the same fire) and could have easily put it out, but stubbornly chose not to. I hope the insurance company sues the daylights out of the fire department and mayor.
I've actually been thinking about what the insurance company might do. Would it be so unreasonable for the homeowner's insurance policy to include a clause forcing him or her to pay for appropriate fire coverage?
--j_k
Posted by Flying Fish (Member # 12032) on :
If you don't have a mortgage, you usually don't have to have homeowner's hazard insurance. A bank which holds your mortgage can use an escrow account to force you to pay the taxes and the hazard insurance. Also, my homeowners insurance (USAA) knows EXACTLY how far away the nearest fire stations are, what their acreditations are, what kind of equipment and personnel work there onsite, etc. And they set my rates accordingly.
Once you own your house, nobody forces you to insure it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Glen, I am pretty sure they were actually on the scene. I don't think I will trust your judgement on how dangerous it could have become, as you weren't there, and I have no idea about your training in the subject. Nothing personal....I wouldn't trust MY judgement either, for the same reason.
If someone gets hurt doing it, they are screwed. If they don't get permission and the truck or pump breaks, they are screwed. Getting paid 3 years later won't pay the salaries until then, and the court system is just as likely to deny the claim as to award it. If awarded, all the guy has to do is claim hardship and the payments are lowered....perhaps as low as $50 a month. How long should they wait for the money, when they have bills to pay?
Had someone been in there, I bet they would have tried to save them. In THAT situation there is a moral obligation that supersedes other concerns.
But property?
You CAN fire a volunteer, easily. And getting sued is no joking matter. You could lose your house, your car, your savings.....all because someone decided to sue you after the fact.
You know, sorta like he wanted fire coverage after the fact.....
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I don't think I will trust your judgement on how dangerous it could have become, as you weren't there, and I have no idea about your training in the subject.
As I've said several times, the situation was different at different times as these events played out. When he called 911, there was no one on the scene, and the decision not to send trucks allowed the fire to reach the neighbor's property.
It's not a matter of my judgement. Fires do spread and can get out of control, easily. A 911 operator is not in a position to decide whether the fire is a threat to adjacent properties, but from what I know of 911, it is illegal to fail to respond, for exactly that reason. Even when it is clear that the phone call is a child pulling a prank the operators in my area always send a response appropriate to the stated threat.
As to my training on the subject, I often list "pyromaniac" as my former job. I was, in fact, in combustion research for 9 years.
quote:You CAN fire a volunteer, easily. And getting sued is no joking matter. You could lose your house, your car, your savings.....all because someone decided to sue you after the fact.
Bull. You can ask a volunteer not to return. That's not firing someone, as they haven't lost employment. And the only threat of lawsuit here is from the fire department, but that's pretty far fetched. Penalized or fined, maybe, but not enough to lose a house. You're just being ridiculous.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Why should MY money go to provide services to YOU when YOU aren't willing to help pay for it, when I have no legal obligation to do so.
This has been asked and answered: Because you have a moral obligation to do so. Also, as I've pointed out before, the majority of the cost of operating a fire department is having the equipment available, not actually fighting the fire. And given that the grass fire was burning for 2 hours before it reached the house, firefighters didn't need to endanger themselves by fighting a house fire.
(i wont quote the rest of your post but i will address most of it)
first, thats not a valid answer/argument because there is no proof that any such moral obligation exist. unless of course you want to claim one originates from a divine source. its absurd to hold Person A responsible for Person B's wellbeing if or because person B doesnt care enough to take care of his/herself.
and it appears you are underestimating the cost of even a voluntary fire department. a portion of the cost of operating a fire department its having the equipment available but there are other significant costs as well: the resources (water, retardant, location, fuel, equipment, classroom teaching materials) needed to train the firefighters, the locations and means necessary to store, maintain and repair the equipment, the basic infrastructure and communications of the emergency response services (911 dispatchers, equipment, licensees, software, training). then, in addition to all those costs (lets ignore the actual time of the volunteers, in training and on calls, which has a cost/value to the city but isnt as readily identified), there is the cost of fuel, fire suppression materials and wear-and-tear on the equipment, as you indicated.
whats more, volunteers do not work shifts or reside at the firehouse. it takes time to mobilize and equip a crew in addition to the travel time to the fire, which is likely significant if theyre leaving the city proper, traveling on surface streets and back roads.
its likely the lawn catching fire didnt constitute a 'grass' fire. the term as its used in county laws and ordinances probably refers to a brushfire or open land wildfire. in addition, a burning shed most definitely constitutes a structure fire which means the volunteer fire department would have been alerted, not the Obion County Volunteer Rescue Squad.
must the volunteer firefighters be required to call all the insurance claims adjusters, accountants, lawyers, and city officials and administrators necessary to find out if the homeowner can even pay 'whatever' it costs to fight the fire? as others have said, the firefighters arent there to make financial transactions. yes, a municipality does have ways of collecting a debt, but the homeowner could and likely does have obligations and debts with other entities besides the municipality. when the fire is burning isnt the time to address such matters.
if, ten months ago, the homeowner 'forgot' to pay, which he may well have, for the firefighting services, thats a very unfortunate mistake, but if i forget to check my blind spot and smash into another car on the freeway, that too is a very unfortunate mistake but forgetting my own obligations and duties doenst absolve me of the consequences of my negligence.
please excuse the length of the post and the reiteration of arguments already made but their is much regarding this circumstance that is being ignored or unduly simplified.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:I don't think I will trust your judgement on how dangerous it could have become, as you weren't there, and I have no idea about your training in the subject.
As I've said several times, the situation was different at different times as these events played out. When he called 911, there was no one on the scene, and the decision not to send trucks allowed the fire to reach the neighbor's property.
It's not a matter of my judgement. Fires do spread and can get out of control, easily. A 911 operator is not in a position to decide whether the fire is a threat to adjacent properties, but from what I know of 911, it is illegal to fail to respond, for exactly that reason. Even when it is clear that the phone call is a child pulling a prank the operators in my area always send a response appropriate to the stated threat.
As to my training on the subject, I often list "pyromaniac" as my former job. I was, in fact, in combustion research for 9 years.
quote:You CAN fire a volunteer, easily. And getting sued is no joking matter. You could lose your house, your car, your savings.....all because someone decided to sue you after the fact.
Bull. You can ask a volunteer not to return. That's not firing someone, as they haven't lost employment. And the only threat of lawsuit here is from the fire department, but that's pretty far fetched. Penalized or fined, maybe, but not enough to lose a house. You're just being ridiculous.
No, I am not. As someone who has actually been in the field, and who knows many, many volunteer firefighters, I'd say I have a very good basis for making this decision. You may choose to disagree, but that doesn't mean my opinion is invalid. In fact, it's probably several time better than yours.
He could be sued by the people who's resources were damaged, the people who paid for the service. He would be sued for any water damage or any damage he failed to prevent, because any contract signed under those conditions would fail in court for the simple reason that it would be considered signed "under duress". If he was a Cpt. and ordered his men in, and one got injured, they could sue him for giving an illegal order. If one died, he could be sued for wrongful death, as they were not allowed to be in there by law. If equipment failed or was damaged, the fire companies insurance would refuse to pay to fix or replace it, as it wasn't being used in a legal manner.
Those are off the top of my head. Let me know which of those are bull, or ridiculous. Particularly since I know several of those that have actually happened.
Firefighters, even volunteer ones, are sometimes compensated slightly. Many so-called volunteer companies, are made up of paid firefighters and unpaid ones. Many of them are getting experience in the field, waiting until a paid position comes up.
Trust me.....it's still getting fired, and it reflects poorly on them, and can be a factor when applying for a full time position.
Glen, it IS possible to disagree without being insulting. I don't see anyone here saying the guy deserved to lose his house. I don't see anyone here in this thread, myself included, who thinks this type of fire service is anything other than a poor substitute for a taxed based fire company.
I am sick of seeing fire companies lose funding every time a budget crunch comes along. I am tired of seeing firehouses shut down across towns because politicians say firefighters are "overpaid" and they have a "surplus" of them. I hate it when people who have no clue how expensive it is to run a pump truck claim that they know best how to deploy them, and when morons (no one here, just some politicians in my town) interfere with safely deploying fire companies.
I bet those firefighters felt horrible, but I still say it wasn't their fault they were placed in that position. I also don't think they were stupid, or morally wrong, to do what they did.
YMMV, though.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
This whole situation makes me sick, but I'm most angry with the homeowner. I don't know how he could claim he just "forgot" when he was clearly reported as saying that he thought they department would come even if he hadn't paid. It means he's put some thoughts into not paying. I'm not saying I don't feel bad that he lost his house, but I do feel bad that he seems to be dragging the fire company through the mud over it. They shouldn't be made to feel guilty because he didn't do what he was supposed to do.
I live in an area that is only served by a volunteer fire departments. Many of my relations are volunteer fire fighters here (and others are professional fire fighters in a city about an hour away). Even though our fire department is volunteer only, there are still expenses. There have to be trucks, pumps, hydrants, alarms, radios, etc. Because I live within the city limits, these are paid for by taxes. Some of the rural areas near us have organized themselves into a sort of unincorporated township for the purposes of services like Fire, EMS, Water, etc. They are also authorized to collect taxes on a limited basis, and so "tax" to pay for this service. However, people who live in the rural area but are not part of one of the townships basically have to go without fire coverage. I don't think there's even an "opt in" option. They're just not part of our coverage area, and that's that.
I'm not sure why we have a government that has decided fire services are a city, not county problem. After all, everyone lives in a county (or parish) but not everyone lives in a city. I suspect, however, that money is part of the issue. Covering large amounts of rural area is expensive. Is it really fair to tax someone for a service they'll never really be able to use? Even here, where some of our rural areas have coverage, some people complain about paying for it. Because our fire-fighters are volunteer, they aren't all at the firehouse to be called out at a moments notice. They have to drive to the fire house, get the engine, and then drive up to 30 miles on country roads in some cases. A response time of over an hour is not unheard of or even unreasonable in some of the more distant locations. It's not unfathomable to understand why people don't think it's a service worth paying for.
Also, while you may not be able to fire a volunteer, you can sue them, either as an individual or the entire fire department. If they had somehow damaged this man's property while fighting the fire, he could have easily sued them. And, as others have mentioned, there is no way their insurance would have covered any damage to firefighters or equipment if it happened while they were fighting a fire that was clearly out of their jurisdiction. It may be sad and tragic, but it is reality.
I also didn't read anywhere that the neighbors house actually burned. The articles I read made it sound like the fire was controlled before it got to the neighboring property.
Our "city" (really a town of about 2000 people) has gone without Police services several times in the past due to budget problems. We simply could not afford any officers worth having. Luckily, law enforcement is a sort of "double coverage" game (at least in Texas). There is a Sheriff's office that is paid for with county dollars, and they do provide a limited number of emergency services. However, because they cover the whole county, their response times can be quite slow. They also don't control city traffic or do a variety of other things that city cops do, so having a city Police is still important. Yet, there are times when our city just hasn't been able to afford them, so we go without. Even now, when we do have police coverage, we only have it during the day. We don't have an officer on duty at night at all. It's just the way the world is.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: It's just the way the world is.
Great post, DDDaysh. When you live out in the country, you have to expect these things. If you don't like it, you move into town.
We're not feudal serfs tied to the land and unable to leave it. It's a great big country, and there's something perfect for everyone out there somewhere.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:first, thats not a valid answer/argument because there is no proof that any such moral obligation exist. unless of course you want to claim one originates from a divine source.
Not at all. It has been repeatedly shown that such cooperation has an evolutionary benefit.
quote: I don't know how he could claim he just "forgot" when he was clearly reported as saying that he thought they department would come even if he hadn't paid.
Yes, he said that after his house burned down. Prior to that he offered to pay "whatever it would take" to put out the grass fire before it reached his house. And before that he called 911 and they told him he hadn't paid the bill. He claims he forgot. Maybe he did, maybe he actually thought he did pay the bill (as I did in my previous example) but said "I must have forgotten" rather than saying "I did pay it!" because he knew that being argumentative wouldn't get him any favors. Here's a good one: Maybe he DID pay it, and the fire department failed to properly record the payment. These things certainly happen, they've certainly happened to me. Given the time constraints of a moving fire, it doesn't make any difference which is the case, it simply isn't reasonable to argue the point. Even if he did intentionally fail to pay the fee. He can always be sued afterwards.
quote:No, I am not. As someone who has actually been in the field, and who knows many, many volunteer firefighters, I'd say I have a very good basis for making this decision. You may choose to disagree, but that doesn't mean my opinion is invalid. In fact, it's probably several time better than yours.
On what basis are you making this evaluation of my opinion? What do you know about me? Are you a firefighter? Does your acquaintance with firefighters make you an expert? Do you know how many firefighters I am acquainted with? Your whole argument is based on making assumptions about things that you cannot know.
quote:He could be sued by the people who's resources were damaged, the people who paid for the service. He would be sued for any water damage or any damage he failed to prevent, because any contract signed under those conditions would fail in court for the simple reason that it would be considered signed "under duress". If he was a Cpt. and ordered his men in, and one got injured, they could sue him for giving an illegal order. If one died, he could be sued for wrongful death, as they were not allowed to be in there by law. If equipment failed or was damaged, the fire companies insurance would refuse to pay to fix or replace it, as it wasn't being used in a legal manner.
First: if it was a structure fire, yes there is a considerable difference in the danger between fighting a grass fire and fighting a structure fire. Which is precisely why they should have put out the fire before it reached his house, or spread to the neighbor's property.
But the possibilities you are citing are remote for fighting a grass fire. They need not have involved themselves with any structures. From what I understand of your argument, you are actually claiming that Cranick could have sued them for water damage after he requested that they save his house. Or that the neighbors could have sued them for using their money to put out his house. Both claims are ridiculous.
Given that they had a 911 recording of Cranick offering to pay whatever it takes, any reasonable person would simply send him a bill, which undoubtedly would have run at least an order of magnitude greater than $75. Lawsuits would only follow if he failed to pay the bill.
As to the danger presented to the firefighters, there is a whole spectrum of possible decisions that could be made in this case, the least of which would be to stand at the extreme distance that the hoses can spray and see if that's enough to stop it from reaching the house. The Cranicks were apparently already doing that with garden hoses, so if the firefighters lives would have been threatened, the Cranicks' already were.
Actually, with regard to my personal experience:
I arrived home from school one day to find my house threatened by a fire that had spread from a brush pile where the neighboring apple orchard was burning prunings from the apple trees (they did this every year). The fire department was nowhere in sight, but migrant orchard workers were fighting the fire by swatting it with their coats, hats, shovels and such. We called the fire department and went out and tried to help, but the orchard workers didn't want a couple of kids involved, so they shooed us away. At no time did I feel that getting near the fire would endanger me, but I could certainly see how the fire could spread faster than the workers could put it out.
As it turned out, the brush pile fire was being watched by a volunteer firefighter who was sitting in his truck on the opposite side of the brush fire, unaware that the fire had spread from the opposite side. When we called the fire department, he heard a report on the scanner that there was a fire near where he was, and he left to fire to go find it. Other volunteers eventually showed up, but by then the orchard workers had it under control. I'm sure the orchard workers would have stopped if they felt they were in danger, but they weren't.
And neither were these firefighters in danger as they sat by and watched the fire approach the Cranick house. What is the difference between watching from a distance, and spraying from a distance?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
this sort of indirectly references a point I've stuck to, which is that firefighters' needing to go through an extra step of litigiousness protection and vetting before, you know, putting fires out is kind of like doctors standing around twiddling their thumbs for a gunshot victim in the e.r. while billing makes sure they would get paid if they save his leg.
universal fire coverage pl0x, pleased to be removing superfluous steps between incident and response
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I have to disagree with that. Less than 3 years ago I was involved in fighting a brush fire that started in an empty dairy field behind our "neighborhood" (two dead end streets that form an L, houses along the roads, field in the space between the legs of the L behind the houses.)
It started almost exactly at midnight when some idiot a few streets over was shooting off bottle rockets in the middle of a drought. We were very lucky. My aunt who lives on the far side of the field (about a mile and a half away) routinely sits on her roof on New Years Eve to watch over her own land, and saw that fire ignite. She immediately called 911, but as I've mentioned before, we only have a volunteer force with not-great response times. Couple this with the fact that the only road access to the field that was on fire was actually about 5 miles in the opposite direction from the houses (all those five miles across open field with no road), well... the fire department was going to take a while.
My aunt called us, and all of our neighbors that she knew. We then sent my littlest brother running around the neighborhood to knock on the rest of the doors, and set out to try to keep the fire from the houses with nothing but garden hoses and buckets of pool water. It was insane, but we thought we could handle it. We figured, at any rate, that if we stayed far enough back from the flames we should be safe, and could create a damp barrier between the houses and the fire.
In the end, it worked. We were able to wet down all the roofs, so no structures caught from flying sparks, and we even managed to wet the grass sufficiently that it slowed the fire until the fire department could come at it with foam from the opposite side. However, there were at least two times I remember when my dad and the other man that was closest to the flames thought they were in safe territory only to have sparks jump over our dampened barrier and ignite behind them. Luckily no one got more than singed, but I definitely wouldn't say there was "no danger" in fighting a brush fire by hand. Any number of things can go wrong!
Mostly though, I think many of you really don't understand the mindset of many people who live in very rural areas. You keep saying that letting this one guy pay "after the fact" would not have impacted the ability to fund the service, but that's just not true. The places around here that are covered by fire service often have people thoroughly pissed at having to be taxed for the service who would gladly stop paying for it if they could, and would gladly take the risk of paying out the nose if there ever was a fire. We see it already in other services, like road surfacing and brush management. People don't pay the county fees for the service because they figure that if the grating truck is already traveling down the road, he'll go ahead and pave their personal part because it's easier than checking his map to see who he should and should not pave. The same goes with roadside brush control, pest control, all sorts of things. Farmers, in general, have learned to work the system for all it's worth because that's how most of them manage to survive. You can keep saying that people would have continued to pay even if they helped, and MAYBE you're right about those particular people in Tennessee, but I have to doubt it, because I actually KNOW the people right here in Texas, and they most certainly wouldn't pay.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: ... The places around here that are covered by fire service often have people thoroughly pissed at having to be taxed for the service ... Farmers, in general, have learned to work the system for all it's worth because that's how most of them manage to survive.
Heh. These two points bring up a possible enforcement mechanism, don't pay for fire protection? No farm subsidies. Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Alright Mucus! That's a solution that might actually work! I don't dislike farmers, but they have to survive in a world that doesn't really value them (or, rather, their product) anymore. Unfortunately, that has made subsidies a way of life for them.
I am curious though, I wonder how states like Wyoming manage this problem. It's so easy in areas like mine for there to be a one or even two hour response time for emergency personnel, and we're densely populated compared to some of those areas.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: I have to disagree with that.... ...Luckily no one got more than singed, but I definitely wouldn't say there was "no danger" in fighting a brush fire by hand. Any number of things can go wrong!
You didn't state what you disagree with. You disagree that watching from a distance put the firefighters in the same jeopardy as spraying water from the same distance? Or that the firefighters lives would have been threatened in the same way that the Cranicks' lives already were, since they were fighting the fire with garden hoses?
quote:Mostly though, I think many of you really don't understand the mindset of many people who live in very rural areas.
The house I lived in when the fire broke out was a half mile from our nearest neighbor. Is that rural enough for you? Maybe not. On one side was an apple orchard, the other side woods and swamp followed by cornfields and cow pasture. Our driveway was 1/3 of a mile long.
But really, I'm getting confounded by people who think they can read the minds of those involved in this case. You can't. You're arguing from a position of ignorance, and claiming you can make judgments based on your suppositions.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:its absurd to hold Person A responsible for Person B's wellbeing if or because person B doesnt care enough to take care of his/herself.
First of all, this can't be a hard and fast rule. What if A is B's parent, and B is a young or mentally disabled child?
Second, your rule doesn't seem to apply to the situation. It's not that the real-life "person B" didn't care. They just forgot. Some people are more forgetful than others. Once I mailed an application to renew my passport to the office in Chicago, without including the passport. Did I not care enough? Of course I cared, I was taking a trip to France later that month. I was just being an absent-minded moron.
If you prefer societies where the absent-minded are harshly punished, fair enough. To me that sounds like a weird standard to hold people to, and I certainly feel lucky I personally don't live in such a community.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I'm arguing from no more a place of ignorance than you, since you weren't there either and do not know the people in question. I have admitted that, but have given the reasons that I believe the way I do, based on the experience I have.
And, yes, I am saying that the firefighters would have been in more danger trying to fight the fire than they were in watching the fire. If they needed to move back out of the way, it is easier to do if they are not already in the process of fighting the fire. Whether or not they were in more danger than the homeowners is a moot point, since the homeowners made their own decision to fight the fire.
And no, I don't consider half a mile from neighbor to neighbor to be "very rural". It is rural, but we have places considered to be "in town" that are that far from neighbors.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: But really, I'm getting confounded by people who think they can read the minds of those involved in this case. You can't. You're arguing from a position of ignorance, and claiming you can make judgments based on your suppositions.
wow. this from you? most of what youve said so far is unrestrained speculation and reckless suppositions unless of course you have numerous and detailed reports and eyewitness accounts you arent sharing with the forum. if you review what youve posted you will notice "your whole argument is based on making assumptions about things that you cannot know." those of us with a view that differs from yours have made an effort to go with the known facts and avoid guessing at what the homeowner 'maybe' did or didnt do. and, with regards to this discussion, your orchard fire anecdote was interesting but inconsequential; you cant transpose your experience with this event and expect increased credibility or proficiency when analyzing firefighting and emergency response services. i cant read minds but i can read news reports, laws and regulations and historical accounts where the benevolent actions of good people ended up costing them.
again, as others have said, this is a very unfortunate circumstance for the homeowner but hopefully it will go to illustrate the cost of negligence in such a system. the negligence on the homeowners part is what needs to be addressed, not the system that the residents of Obion county, the county in which the homeowner lives, have deemed acceptable. i dont want obion county residents forcing laws and taxes upon my county, half a country away.
and "such cooperation has an evolutionary benefit" doesnt equal a moral obligation. cooperation doesnt stem from moral obligation. and 'evolutionary benefit' is a big idea and deserves a thread unto itself.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:its absurd to hold Person A responsible for Person B's wellbeing if or because person B doesnt care enough to take care of his/herself.
First of all, this can't be a hard and fast rule. What if A is B's parent, and B is a young or mentally disabled child?
Second, your rule doesn't seem to apply to the situation. It's not that the real-life "person B" didn't care. They just forgot. Some people are more forgetful than others. Once I mailed an application to renew my passport to the office in Chicago, without including the passport. Did I not care enough? Of course I cared, I was taking a trip to France later that month. I was just being an absent-minded moron.
If you prefer societies where the absent-minded are harshly punished, fair enough. To me that sounds like a weird standard to hold people to, and I certainly feel lucky I personally don't live in such a community.
no, its not a hard and fast rule. What if A is B's parent, and B is a young or mentally disabled child? then A is the legal guardian of the child and is accountable for all that such a position entails. i would love to elaborate but this is irrelevant to the discussion as we have no indication that the homeowner is mentally disabled.
it would be wonderful if our legal system could function on a per case basis but law has never thrived in grey areas. probably because dishonesty is found all to often in mans nature.
i dont prefer a society where the absent-minded are harshly punished but what kind of precedent is set when citizens feel they can forget, intentionally or unintentional, things of great consequence and expect no negative repercussions? your absent-mindedness could have cost you a trip to france, which would have been a pity, by the way, as its a very beautiful place, and the only person you could have justifiably blamed was yourself. you could have felt angry or dismayed that others didnt make accommodations for your forgetfulness but that wouldnt have removed the burden of responsibility from yourself.
freedom is found in the justice of law and safety is found in the order. by going against the laws of the land as they had been established and accepted by the people, the fire fighters would have jeopardized the functionality of the fire department, and therefore their jobs, and their actions would have cast a blow to the integrity of the entire system.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I was an EMT for about 8 years, and I volunteered with 3 local fire stations in rural MA for years. I've treated the injuries caused by fires, but have never fought one myself. I can't claim any fire experience of my own for that reason....I was always outside of the fire zone, treating people. Sometimes the firefighters themselves.
So yeah, I think my experience....that of being at well over 40 fire scenes myself, and knowing many firefighters in a professional situation rather than just social ones....lets me have some insight to the risks of what you are talking about.
As I said, it is because of this type of situation that firefighters overwhelmingly prefer universal, taxed based fire coverage.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I'm arguing from no more a place of ignorance than you, since you weren't there either and do not know the people in question.
If you follow my posts, you'll see that I am arguing in cases, specifically to avoid the kind of suppositions you have made, and now accuse me of. Cranick has been accused of "refusing to pay" (not supported), "opting out" (not supported), "choosing not to pay" (not supported). This is sheer mind reading. And I was responding specifically to the idea that "knowing the mindset of people in rural areas" makes someone more capable of judging the situation better than me. The very idea that you can use "knowing the mindset" of a people to judge them is the very definition of prejudice.
I have not made any statement of what people were thinking, only what they did or said. I give Cranick the benefit of the doubt (innocent until proven guilty, as they say), and I think that morality demands that in a situation that serious, not giving him the benefit of the doubt is morally wrong.
quote:Whether or not they were in more danger than the homeowners is a moot point, since the homeowners made their own decision to fight the fire.
Not true, according to the fire departments own website:
quote:The municipalities believe they must agree to this plan or cut all rural residents off from fire service—except in a case where a HUMAN life is endangered. The municipal fire departments and firefighters realize that the rural subscription program is not the best fire service delivery method, but the county leaders have left them with no other option for the rural property owners to pay their fair share of the cost and expense associated with operating and maintaining the municipal fire departments.
Note that their entire argument comes down to funding. You guys have added this whole aspect of lawsuits and safety, none of which has been so much as mentioned in the statements made by the county.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Lawsuits ARE part of the cost and funding.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
So is safety, but neither was cited by the fire department as a reason why they didn't fight the fire. Only that he hadn't paid his $75. You guys want to throw in red herrings, fine, but expect to be called on it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Funny how anything that you disagree with is a "red herring". He didn't pay for coverage, so he wasn't covered.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)