Libertarian Fire-Fighting in action - USA, where else?

phantom_lord · 08-10-2010 09:26AM

Probably should have an option of a 10k call out fee or something.

Dravokivich · 08-10-2010 09:32AM

He didn't pay for a service he didn't get... what's the problem?

topper75 · 08-10-2010 09:32AM

How dilligent would they be phantomlord paying 10k retrospectively if $75 was not interesting to them beforehand?

Amhran Nua · 08-10-2010 10:00AM

gizmo wrote: »

Your hypothesis was based on everyone else continuing to pay the rate they are currently. Both I, and indeed other posters above, have questioned that which is why we have come to difference conclusions.

All that proves is that you didn't bother to read the post.

topper75 wrote: »

This country needs libertarian policies now more than ever.

Libertarian free market policies were more or less responsible for how bad the potato famine got. If you might select an economic position that didn't result in the untimely death and displacement of millions in Ireland alone, that would be good. The, one would have thought obvious, lesson to take away from this is that in hard times, society needs to pull closer together, not be cutting itself off into isolated islands. You do realise they advocate the disbandment of social welfare entirely? Dickensian morons.

topper75 wrote: »

How dilligent would they be phantomlord paying 10k retrospectively if $75 was not interesting to them beforehand?

Thats why they have a court system there, same as any other busines.

Augmerson · 08-10-2010 10:15AM

Would this not play havoc with insurance? I mean, take out insurance on your house, and then it burns down in a preventable event (the firemen could have put out the fire)?

topper75 · 08-10-2010 10:21AM

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Libertarian free market policies were more or less responsible for how bad the potato famine got. If you might select an economic position that didn't result in the untimely death and displacement of millions in Ireland alone, that would be good. The, one would have thought obvious, lesson to take away from this is that in hard times, society needs to pull closer together, not be cutting itself off into isolated islands. You do realise they advocate the disbandment of social welfare entirely? Dickensian morons.

Thats why they have a court system there, same as any other busines.

You are shooting yourself in the foot here in this argument with your last point. You are now admitting the relationship between the firefighting service and its subscribers is the "same as any other business". Yet you seem confused when failure to pay the subscription results in failure to receive that service. Which way do you want it?

I don't have a problem with removing the majority of social welfare. It has become corrupted entirely in this country and produced a signficant cohort who see working for a living as a last resort. You cut their dole and they're looking for the doctor to get themselves on disability benefit. The "morons" are the ones who perpetuate this corrupt and failed system.

Something has got to give. Either we take the opportunity to cop the hell on with the upcoming budget, or else it is hammertime with the IMF.

By "society pulling together" I can only assume you mean brave socialists stepping forward, willing to share the earnings of others. That Marxist nonsense has had its day. This country needs it like a hole in the head.

Amhran Nua · 08-10-2010 10:30AM

topper75 wrote: »

You are shooting yourself in the foot here in this argument with your last point. You are now admitting the relationship between the firefighting service and its subscribers is the "same as any other business". Yet you seem confused when failure to pay the subscription results in failure to receive that service. Which way do you want it?

The only confusion here seems to be arising with the method of debt collection. Government agencies, private businesses, all use the same method to recover money. Nil points, I'm afraid.

topper75 wrote: »

I don't have a problem with removing the majority of social welfare. It has become corrupted entirely in this country and produced a signficant cohort who see working for a living as a last resort. You cut their dole and they're looking for the doctor to get themselves on disability benefit. The "morons" are the ones who perpetuate this corrupt and failed system.

You're not a true blue libertarian so.

topper75 wrote: »

By "society pulling together" I can only assume you mean brave socialists stepping forward, willing to share the earnings of others. That Marxist nonsense has had its day. This country needs it like a hole in the head.

You can assume what you like, but you'll never know till you ask me for clarification. I mean support the needy, assign resources where they are needed most, lay out plans for the whole country to recover speedily. As for the marxists, I feel like telling students I see in the marches that the creepy old guy spouting the baffling bullshit is only doing so to get in your pants. Then I comfort myself with the notion that if the creepy old guys were successful, the far left would be far more popular.

jackiebaron · 08-10-2010 10:32AM

Herb Powell wrote: »

the fireman had the capability to save your man's house. the very least he could have done was to sort out the cost later.
but no, he had to be a dickhead

That's America for you now. People go out of their way to be ****. Any excuse to fück people over. Cops look for any window of opportunity to taser or kill someone for the most trivial of transgressions. People cheer gleefully when someone makes the most minute mistake and then suffers incalculable consequences.
It's absolutely fücking sickening.

phantom_lord · 08-10-2010 10:39AM

jackiebaron wrote: »

That's America for you now. People go out of their way to be ****. Any excuse to fück people over. Cops look for any window of opportunity to taser or kill someone for the most trivial of transgressions. People cheer gleefully when someone makes the most minute mistake and then suffers incalculable consequences.
It's absolutely fücking sickening.

Guy should have paid his 75 bucks.

BluePlanet · 08-10-2010 10:46AM

jackiebaron wrote: »

That's America for you now. People go out of their way to be ****. Any excuse to fück people over. Cops look for any window of opportunity to taser or kill someone for the most trivial of transgressions. People cheer gleefully when someone makes the most minute mistake and then suffers incalculable consequences.
It's absolutely fücking sickening.

Bingo.

I read on another forum where this guy was saying he remembered a time when the local fire brigade would actually turn up to calls about a cat up a tree. And they'd roll out the ladder and everybody would come out onto the street looking on, pretty much cheering them on.

Fast forward a few decades and witness a local fire brigade standing idylly by watching someone's house burn, their pet dogs and cat getting incinerated inside.

Something is very wrong in USA. Lets hope the contagion stays there.

karma_ · 08-10-2010 10:50AM

phantom_lord wrote: »

Guy should have paid his 75 bucks.

Do you realise how ridiculous this argument of repeating this figure of $75 is?

$75 ≠ 1 Man's house.

Fair enough the man may not have paid what equals about 40 quid but what about his wife, his kids what are they going to do, was it their fault? No but they will have to suffer teh consequences. What about the neighbours, they have to drive past a burnt out hulk of a house, will it affect their land or value of their property?

As for Manic Moran, he can bleat on about making a decision based on compassion, but I'd rather do that than be a hard nosed cnut any day of teh week.

jackiebaron · 08-10-2010 10:53AM

Rented Mule wrote: »

Surely, if the homeowner was going to deliberately and consciously make the choice, of his own free will, that he did not want this protection, he would have a secondary plan of his own in place ?

You can't jump out of a plane and then complain that you didn't buy a parachute.

That kind of glib and shabby attitude is typical of people who blame the victim as a sort of defence mechanism to distance themselves from the possibility of ever being as misfortunate as this guy. There are certain things in life that are basic and should not be paid for and they are the right to protection, health, safety and education. If a guy is getting attacked in the street he should be able to rely upon the protection of a police force. He should not have to be assaulted and have police officers stand by doing nothing because he didn't pay some kind of stipend or didn't pay his taxes.
By your reasoning if someone goes walking in the hills and bad weather moves in trapping him in precarious conditions then he should simply be left to die because, well, fück him. He knew the risks. It's all his own fault. Let his wife and kids sob and mourn the loss of their beloved husband/father. Fück them too!

Does this kind of approach make you feel strong? Is the slightest gesture of empathy and compassion something that makes you feel wimpish and weak?

phantom_lord · 08-10-2010 10:56AM

karma_ wrote: »

Do you realise how ridiculous this argument of repeating this figure of $75 is?

$75 ≠ 1 Man's house.

Fair enough the man may not have paid what equals about 40 quid but what about his wife, his kids what are they going to do, was it their fault? No but they will have to suffer teh consequences. What about the neighbours, they have to drive past a burnt out hulk of a house, will it affect their land or value of their property?

As for Manic Moran, he can bleat on about making a decision based on compassion, but I'd rather do that than be a hard nosed cnut any day of teh week.

Fire service costs money, you're paying people to risk their lives to save your property as well as for their equipment. If you don't pay the fee but save your house anyway, why would anyone bother paying? Without the $$$ the fire service would be non existent. By saving this one house you put everyone else's at risk, as well as the likelihood of the fire service.

jackiebaron · 08-10-2010 10:56AM

phantom_lord wrote: »

Guy should have paid his 75 bucks.

Yep. I see this disease that afflicts America has infected you too. Must be nice to be a sadist. Doing something to help someone in need is for losers, right?

karma_ · 08-10-2010 11:01AM

phantom_lord wrote: »

Fire service costs money, you're paying people to risk their lives to save your property as well as for their equipment. If you don't pay the fee but save your house anyway, why would anyone bother paying? Without the $$$ the fire service would be non existent. By saving this one house you put everyone else's at risk, as well as the likelihood of the fire service.

Your argument is completely redundant and here is why;

The Fire Department in question is a fully funded department. The house in question is in a rural community outside the city limits, this area cannot afford it's own fire department so they rent the neighbouring cities fire department for this $75 fee. So fee or no fee, the department remains fully funded, the $75 is just extras.

phantom_lord · 08-10-2010 11:02AM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Yep. I see this disease that afflicts America has infected you too. Must be nice to be a sadist. Doing something to help someone in need is for losers, right?

I don't think this is that much different to not having insurance. If the house had burnt down and he had no insurance would people be in uproar about the liberation uncaring insurance company?

jackiebaron · 08-10-2010 11:03AM

phantom_lord wrote: »

Fire service costs money, you're paying people to risk their lives to save your property as well as for their equipment. If you don't pay the fee but save your house anyway, why would anyone bother paying? Without the $$$ the fire service would be non existent. By saving this one house you put everyone else's at risk, as well as the likelihood of the fire service.

Oh, bullsh!t. Stop over-dramatising. Standing in the driveway with a power hose spraying water onto the house isn't putting ANYONE'S life at risk. I've done it myself. The firemen were already at the scene. They were already on the clock. How much money did they save by NOT turning on the hoses for a while? Again, you're the kind of person who thinks that anyone who is in need should suffer the severest of consequences for the smallest of fückups if the blame can be laid at their door, hardman.

karma_ · 08-10-2010 11:04AM

phantom_lord wrote: »

I don't think this is that much different to not having insurance. If the house had burnt down and he had no insurance would people be in uproar about the liberation uncaring insurance company?

Could the insurance company have sent someone to put the fire out?

gizmo · 08-10-2010 11:07AM

Amhran Nua wrote: »

All that proves is that you didn't bother to read the post.

Incorrect...

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Precedent my bum. Hit him with a $750 uninsured call out charge after you save his house and let word of that spread around.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

The guy who just saved the cost of rebuilding his house. How hard is it to ask people to agree to pay a higher callout charge when they phone in from an unregistered address?

And then most importantly...

Amhran Nua wrote: »

$750 is ten years payments. Besides which the people who were paying will continue to pay. The people who don't and have a fire will contribute anyway. There is no need to risk peoples' lives over a minor fee.

That is the point many people are making, if people see they could make a once off retrospective payment then they simply wouldn't bother paying $75 a year. How many fires do you think people are going to suffer every 10 years?

If people do not pay the $75 then the service to the community would have to be discontinued. This guy thought he could get away with it after the last incident where they let him off. He did not care how that affected the rest of the community. It was an entirely selfish move on his part and one which he is paying for now.

It's the entire basis of insurance to be honest, you pay the premium to protect you in case something happens, you don't go crying to the insurance company after the accident has happened if you haven't been paying your premium.

jackiebaron wrote: »

That's America for you now. People go out of their way to be ****. Any excuse to fück people over. Cops look for any window of opportunity to taser or kill someone for the most trivial of transgressions. People cheer gleefully when someone makes the most minute mistake and then suffers incalculable consequences.
It's absolutely fücking sickening.

More over-reactionary anti-American diatribe, bravo.

karma_ wrote: »

Could the insurance company have sent someone to put the fire out?

From what I got out of the CNN interview, they offered the fire department extra money to put out the fire but they refused because he had not being paying the subscription. This is the entire point of many people's objections, if people thought they could get away with not paying and still be protected through their insurance company paying or knowing they could make a one off fee after the event, then they wouldn't bother playing in the future, thus risking the provision of the service for the rest of the community.

phantom_lord · 08-10-2010 11:08AM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Oh, bullsh!t. Stop over-dramatising.

ha, you're the one that's totally over reacting and dramatising over this.

phantom_lord · 08-10-2010 11:11AM

karma_ wrote: »

Your argument is completely redundant and here is why;

The Fire Department in question is a fully funded department. The house in question is in a rural community outside the city limits, this area cannot afford it's own fire department so they rent the neighbouring cities fire department for this $75 fee. So fee or no fee, the department remains fully funded, the $75 is just extras.

It's outside the city limits, protecting that area is a drain on resources for that dept. They didn't pay the fee, it's ridiculous imo for them to complain that the fire service they didn't contribute anything to didn't help them.

jackiebaron · 08-10-2010 11:11AM

phantom_lord wrote: »

I don't think this is that much different to not having insurance. If the house had burnt down and he had no insurance would people be in uproar about the liberation uncaring insurance company?

The two are completely unrelated. Trying to compare them is infantile. House insurance goes towards the replacement of lost possessions through fire, theft or natural disasters.
In this case the fire service were on hand and deliberately chose to just abandon this guy to his plight. They took this revolting decision just to revel in someone else's misery. You can blather on all you want about costs and blame and neglect. All that is besides the point. These guys had the time, the training, the equipment and the wherewithall to extend the hand of help to someone in dire straits and they chose to just let him go fück himself.
If you think that's the proper way to act then there's something radically wrong with you and your ideas of correct human behaviour.

karma_ · 08-10-2010 11:11AM

gizmo wrote: »

Incorrect...

And then most importantly...

That is the point many people are making, if people see they could make a once off retrospective payment then they simply wouldn't bother paying $75 a year. How many fires do you think people are going to suffer every 10 years?

If people do not pay the $75 then the service to the community would have to be discontinued. This guy thought he could get away with it after the last incident where they let him off. He did not care how that affected the rest of the community. It was an entirely selfish move on his part and one which he is paying for now.

It's the entire basis of insurance to be honest, you pay the premium to protect you in case something happens, you don't go crying to the insurance company after the accident has happened if you haven't been paying your premium.

More over-reactionary anti-American diatribe, bravo.

From what I got out of the CNN interview, they offered the fire department extra money to put out the fire but they refused because he had not being paying the subscription. This is the entire point of many people's objections, if people thought they could get away with not paying and still be protected with through their insurance company paying or knowing they could make a one off fee after the event, then they wouldn't bother playing in the future, thus risking the provision of the service for the rest of the community.

Listen to you, I realise it's great craic to sit in a big ol' Ivory tower and all but what of the folk who cannot pay?

This has set a very, very dangerous precedent. Maybe this man could have paid, maybe he was in financial difficulties which is not unknown during a recession. Do we allow all the poor peoples homes to burn down? If we have an ability and a will to help, then we should.

Amhran Nua · 08-10-2010 11:15AM

gizmo wrote: »

Incorrect...

And then most importantly...

So you didn't bother to read any posts after that? Must be very relaxing to be able to selectively choose what you want to read.

phantom_lord · 08-10-2010 11:16AM

jackiebaron wrote: »

The two are completely unrelated. Trying to compare them is infantile. House insurance goes towards the replacement of lost possessions through fire, theft or natural disasters.
In this case the fire service were on hand and deliberately chose to just abandon this guy to his plight. They took this revolting decision just to revel in someone else's misery. You can blather on all you want about costs and blame and neglect. All that is besides the point. These guys had the time, the training, the equipment and the wherewithall to extend the hand of help to someone in dire straits and they chose to just let him go fück himself.
If you think that's the proper way to act then there's something radically wrong with you and your ideas of correct human behaviour.

I think people should just be reasonable for their own actions and responsibilities. He caused the fire himself and didn't pay the fees. You can huff and puff and get upset all you want but the firemen are not the people to blame for this situation at all.

phantom_lord · 08-10-2010 11:17AM

jackiebaron wrote: »

They took this revolting decision just to revel in someone else's misery.

Only noticed this now but lol.

BluePlanet · 08-10-2010 11:20AM

So phantom_lord, just to be clear: you're OK with a fire brigade standing by not doing anything while dogs and a cat get burned up unnecessarily?

What if it were an infant baby in an upstairs bedroom?

phantom_lord · 08-10-2010 11:27AM

BluePlanet wrote: »

So phantom_lord, just to be clear: you're OK with a fire brigade standing by not doing anything while dogs and a cat get burned up unnecessarily?

What if it were an infant baby in an upstairs bedroom?

I guess in that situation they should save the baby but leave it at that.

It's an unfortunate situation but I think people are being ridiculous and hysterical in their reaction to the story and the way they're assigning blame.

As I said earlier, by saving this one house they put the rest of the community at risk for the future.

Amhran Nua · 08-10-2010 11:32AM

phantom_lord wrote: »

As I said earlier, by saving this one house they put the rest of the community at risk for the future.

I think the only reason people aren't responding en masse to that is because its already been dealt with comprehensively at least twice in the thread, and they are tired of repeating themselves.

phantom_lord · 08-10-2010 11:33AM

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I think the only reason people aren't responding en masse to that is because its already been dealt with comprehensively at least twice in the thread, and they are tired of repeating themselves.

It's a fully funded dept for the city limits. It's not a fully funded dept. for the whole rural area outside of that as well.

Libertarian Fire-Fighting in action - USA, where else?

Comments