Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1235

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    karma_ wrote: »
    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?
    You think he can't pay $75 per year? And what of the alternate suggestions of him paying ten times that or even more if he was an unsubscribed caller? How would he pay that? Some people on your side of the fence suggested it be dealt with through the courts, so now you'd want the guy to be dragged through the courts for it?

    Note he can afford house insurance, a premium which would be far higher than $75 per year. Also note that after it happened the last time he went in the next day and paid it. To be honest the notion that he couldn't afford to pay is completely ridiculous.
    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    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.
    I read every single one of your posts and my particular comment was based on those particular highlighted pieces. But by all means keep avoiding the issue and beating your chest about how he was the victim here and ignoring how his selfish actions could affect the rest of the community though.
    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.
    No, the only reason it hasn't been responded to is because the majority of people disagree that his house should have been saved due to the possible affects it would have on the rest of the community.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    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.

    Wait a minute.. the house is burnt down. The only people who could have prevented it from burning to the ground once it caught fire with the firemen. Why are they not to blame if they sat by and let it happen?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭phantom_lord


    Wait a minute.. the house is burnt down. The only people who could have prevented it from burning to the ground once it caught fire with the firemen. Why are they not to blame if they sat by and let it happen?

    They would have saved the house if he had paid the fee. And they wouldn't have needed to be there in the first place if the guy hadn't started the fire.

    It is his fault that the house was burnt down.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    gizmo wrote: »
    I read every single one of your posts and my particular comment was based on those particular highlighted pieces.
    So you're happy enough to just ignore any and all subsequent posts. As I said, must be very relaxing.
    gizmo wrote: »
    No, the only reason it hasn't been responded to is because the majority of people disagree that his house should have been saved due to the possible affects it would have on the rest of the community.
    And now you've elected yourself spokesperson for the majority...


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/248658/pay-spray-fire-department-doing-right-thing-kevin-d-williamson
    The situation is this: The city of South Fulton’s fire department, until a few years ago, would not respond to any fires outside of the city limits — which is to say, the city limited its jurisdiction to the city itself, and to city taxpayers. A reasonable position. Then, a few years ago, a fire broke out in a rural area that was not covered by the city fire department, and the city authorities felt bad about not being able to do anything to help. So they began to offer an opt-in service, for the very reasonable price of $75 a year. Which is to say: They greatly expanded the range of services they offer. The rural homeowners were, collectively, better off, rather than worse off. Before the opt-in program, they had no access to a fire department. Now they do.

    And, for their trouble, the South Fulton fire department is being treated as though it has done something wrong, rather than having gone out of its way to make services available to people who did not have them before. The world is full of jerks, freeloaders, and ingrates — and the problems they create for themselves are their own. These free-riders have no more right to South Fulton’s firefighting services than people in Muleshoe, Texas, have to those of NYPD detectives.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Nothing like a Cato institute mouthpiece to give you a balanced view, which is probably false.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,797 ✭✭✭karma_


    Laughed myself when I seen the national review.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Nothing like a Cato institute mouthpiece to give you a balanced view, which is probably false.

    Usually while debating people actually address the argument at hand rather than attacking the source. Are they incorrect that the fireservice is funded by city taxpayers and is optionally available to rural dwellers?

    I could hardly be described as a Libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, however in this case I fail to see why City taxpayers should be obliged to provide a free fire service to the rest of the county who are obviously not prepared to pay the required levels of tax that would be required for such a service to be provided.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    So you're happy enough to just ignore any and all subsequent posts. As I said, must be very relaxing.


    And now you've elected yourself spokesperson for the majority...
    I can only assume you're now trying to frustrate me into not posting anymore, thankfully it won't work.

    As I have said numerous times at this stage, I read all of the subsequent posts and my comment was referring to a point which you yourself specifically repeated - that there was no harm in introducing a one off payment because everyone else would continue to pay - despite ignoring all other posts looking at it from the other point of view.

    No, I'm not speaking for the majority, I simply looked at the number of posters in this thread, then looked at how many agreed with your point of view that the fire services were at fault. I then saw that the majority of people disagree with your point of view and came to the logical conclusion that the reason people aren't responding in your favour is because those who have posted have disagreed with you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Usually while debating people actually address the argument at hand rather than attacking the source.
    Normally I'd agree, but in this particular case you'd be arguing the current affairs in Soviet Russia with the offical state newspaper.
    gizmo wrote: »
    As I have said numerous times at this stage, I read all of the subsequent posts and my comment was referring to a point which you yourself specifically repeated - that there was no harm in introducing a one off payment because everyone else would continue to pay - despite ignoring all other posts looking at it from the other point of view.
    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    The point you're trying to make is that if a flat $750 fee was charged for each callout, the fire service would go bankrupt. You have no idea whether or not that is the case. And if its not, charge enough so that the average number of calls covers the expenses, with the alternative option of paying an annual fee. Whatever a callout charge turns out to be, its going to be a small percentage of rebuilding a full house.
    gizmo wrote: »
    No, I'm not speaking for the majority
    Great, well refrain from claiming that you do so.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,813 ✭✭✭TPD


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    The point you're trying to make is that if a flat $750 fee was charged for each callout, the fire service would go bankrupt. You have no idea whether or not that is the case. And if its not, charge enough so that the average number of calls covers the expenses, with the alternative option of paying an annual fee. Whatever a callout charge turns out to be, its going to be a small percentage of rebuilding a full house.

    If there are no fires for a while, the firemen will have to change careers to survive. Then there would be no fire service at all. Annual fee payable by everyone who wants the service is the only sustainable way to run the system (if you exclude tax, which this area seems to).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 377 ✭✭AAAAAAAHHH


    Terry wrote: »
    Would you, in all good conscience, stand by and watch a house burn down if you had the means to prevent it?
    I ask this of all the people supporting this action and not just you.

    I ****ing hate people. I really do. I actually hate having to interact with people face-to-face. However, if I had a fire hose and saw a house burning to the ground, I'd use the fire hose to prevent that from happening.

    Slipknot, as much as I hate those wannabe poor ****, had it right when they said "people = shít".

    There's a lot of talk about scumbags in AH, but, and I mean this from the bottom of my cold icy heart (the bit with a slight bit of heat which has risen from my stomach), anyone with the means to prevent a house from burning down and ignoring it over $225 is a complete and utter scumbag.

    That's a completely simplistic view of it. If this guy doesn't pay, and still gets his fire put out, nobody else will pay. Then the fire service gets shut down. Then everybody's house burns when there's a fire.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    TPD wrote: »
    If there are no fires for a while, the firemen will have to change careers to survive.
    Nope, that increases the cost because the average number of calls decrease. In any case its ludicrous to make out that everyone will just stop paying. Not everyone would be that irresponsible and/or forgetful.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭phantom_lord


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Not everyone would be that irresponsible and/or forgetful.

    Just the guy that wanted his house saved? Do you not think it's a tad ridiculous that everyone has else to pick up for his negligence?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Interesting interview with the Fire Chief of a different municipal fire department from the same county that the incident took place in.
    http://www.nwtntoday.com/news.php?viewStory=47109

    Hornbeak Fire Chief Bob Reavis says firefighters and support agencies in Obion County have been unduly condemned, criticized and threatened, not just on a local level, but on a national level, because the South Fulton Fire Department could not respond to a fire because the owner had not paid the rural subscription fee.

    Gene Cranick’s property on Buddy Jones Road burned one week ago Wednesday.

    Reavis called media together Wednesday evening so he could address rural residents in Obion County and explain the facts about the rural fire coverage situation in the county. He said his department and four others in the county do not currently use subscription response.

    “I have proudly served my community for over 36 years as a volunteer, just like the other firefighters standing here with me today,” he said.
    Reavis said Obion County does not operate a fire department, does not own any fire equipment or have any firefighting personnel. “Consequently, you are provided fire protection by the municipal fire departments,” he said.

    “None of your county property tax dollars help fund any of the eight municipal fire departments. All fire departments are individually owned and operated by the eight municipalities.

    “Firefighters in Obion County provide protection outside our municipal limits with the permission of our individual city and town councils that represent the municipal taxpayer.

    “Over 85 percent or more of all our fire calls are in the rural areas of Obion County. All repairs, maintenance and operating budgets are provided to the municipal fire departments from their municipal budgets paid by the municipal taxpayer. “Most of us are volunteer and most of us receive no pay for the hundreds of hours of work we perform in the fire service each year.

    “No firefighter wants to stand by and watch a neighbor’s house burn, but we are sometimes put in that predicament through subscription fire response.”
    In fact, Reavis said he regrets the Cranick home burned as a result of their not paying a rural fire subscription. “This tragedy was not the fault of the South Fulton Fire Department or the City of South Fulton, but rather the result of failure on the homeowner’s part to participate in South Fulton’s rural fire protection subscription program.

    “This same situation could have happened in any area of Obion County currently covered by rural fire subscription response, not just the South Fulton area,” he said. Those areas include South Fulton, Union City and Kenton. Other municipal departments include Hornbeak, Troy, Samburg, Rives and Obion. They do not currently operate under a subscription fee program.

    Reavis said the towns and fire departments have been in negotiations with the Obion County Commission and the county mayor for more than four years trying to resolve the rural fire protection issue. “A comprehensive plan to develop and implement an Obion County Fire Department was presented to the Obion County Commission over two years ago. The intent of the plan, presented by the municipal fire departments, was to eliminate subscription response and replace it with a tax- or fee-based funding for the fire departments and provide rural fire protection to all residents.

    “I want to stress that this fire coverage issue belongs to the Obion County government and the citizens of Obion County, it is not exclusively the problem of the eight towns and fire departments providing rural fire protection for the county residents.”

    Reavis said the purpose of the press conference was not to point fingers and lay blame on anyone, but rather try to involve the citizens of Obion County in helping decide the future of Obion County’s rural fire protection program.

    “Negotiations with the Obion County Commission and the county mayor have been ongoing for over four years in an attempt to resolve this issue. Our county government has repeatedly steered our fire departments and towns toward the subscription-based response program, and the Obion County government has mandated by a vote in the county commission stating that rural fire protection will only be established by a subscription program,” he said.

    “Fire departments know the rural subscription program is not the best fire service delivery method, but our county leaders have left us with no other option for the rural property owners to pay their fair share of the cost and expense associated with operating and maintaining our fire departments.”
    Reavis said the plan which is being developed will not expand, but reduce, the fire protection coverage in five of the eight fire districts in Obion County unless every single property owner signs up for the subscription program.

    “As a rural homeowner, do you want Obion County to continue the controversial rural fire subscription program that will prevent your local fire department from responding to homes that don’t pay the subscription or would you rather have a state-approved rural fire program that could offer rural fire protection to every rural homeowner for a nominal tax or fee paid by the rural residents of Obion County,” Reavis asked county residents.

    “As a rural homeowner, you are being asked to make this decision for yourself. The fire departments are ready, willing and able to help you, as a rural homeowner, but we need your help financially to continue our service.

    “If you are concerned about your fire protection, you should contact your county leaders to voice your concerns and opinions as to how you want to pay your share of the rural fire protection expense, otherwise, we will have no choice but to expand rural fire subscription response throughout the entire county, not just in South Fulton, Union City and Kenton areas,” Reavis said.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Just the guy that wanted his house saved? Do you not think it's a tad ridiculous that everyone has else to pick up for his negligence?
    If they were charging an unregistered housecall fee, nobody else would have to pick up after him. The risks of fire spreading (probably to registered properties) and to human life greatly outweigh the pedantry of letting his house burn over a pittance.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Interesting interview with the Fire Chief of a different municipal fire department from the same county that the incident took place in.
    Thats a bit better. It does underline that even the fire departments recognise the payment method is very poor, and want to change it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭phantom_lord


    If it was a pittance he should have paid it. The bottom line is that it's his negligence that caused this problem.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,942 ✭✭✭topper75


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Nothing like a Cato institute mouthpiece to give you a balanced view, which is probably false.

    Do you have a nerve issue in the left kneecap then? :D

    In a way, I'd love to see Labour/Sinn Féin/other socialists have a go of the steering wheel for a little while. Their policies involve spending our way out of rescession, whilst increasing taxes on those foolish enough to go out to work. A dose of that might make the electorate realise what a waste of time socialism is for once and for all.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Thats a bit better. It does underline that even the fire departments recognise the payment method is very poor, and want to change it.

    Ultimately it appears it is up to the county, and I suspect that the main reason why the County has resisted introducting a taxed county wide fireservice, prefering instead to rely on subscriptionsbased services, is quite likely because the introduction of the additional tax on Rural dwellers would be politically unpopular.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    topper75 wrote: »
    A dose of that might make the electorate realise what a waste of time socialism is for once and for all.
    Socialism means a lot of different things to a lot of people. I think the libertarians have it as badly wrong as the far left, my stance on it is that we as Irish people owe favours to neither philiosphy, which come from far off times and places. Instead we should as an eminently practical people, recognise that there is no silver bullet, take the best of every idea and drop the rest, tailoring each solution to fit the problem, and forget about dogma.
    marco_polo wrote: »
    Ultimately it appears it is up to the county, and I suspect that the main reason why the County has resisted introducting a taxed county wide fireservice, prefering instead to rely on subscriptionsbased services, is quite likely because the introduction of the additional tax on Rural dwellers would be politically unpopular.
    It does show the complete failure of a libertarian system in action however. Some will argue that it instead shows the success of the libertarian system, which as usual discounts any realities like stray cinders endangering other homes or small children that the smoke might have overcome.

    Honestly, I wonder does the irony ever strike some of the more vocal proponents of libertarianism while they pontificate and preach about the failures and evils of government, that they sit on made-in-China chairs typing on a made-in-China computer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Normally I'd agree, but in this particular case you'd be arguing the current affairs in Soviet Russia with the offical state newspaper.
    Again this eventuality was discussed, the fine would have to be prohibitively large which could result in people being unable to pay it and being dragged unnecessarily through the courts system. The current charge of $75 is easily affordable by anyone who can afford a home in the first place so I don't see why it needs to change.
    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Great, well refrain from claiming that you do so.
    Except I did not claim to do so, I pointed out the reason that point probably hadn't been replied to was because the majority of people who have posted disagreed with you, which is a logical conclusion to the latter fact.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,797 ✭✭✭karma_


    gizmo wrote: »

    Except I did not claim to do so, I pointed out the reason that point probably hadn't been replied to was because the majority of people who have posted disagreed with you, which is a logical conclusion to the latter fact.

    The majority disagreed? I doubt that. I would say that the minority disagreed, it's just that they were louder.

    You point out that it wouldn't be fair to take the man through the courts, yet you see no problem with him losing his house and all his possessions, how the fcuk is that fair?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 377 ✭✭AAAAAAAHHH


    Nevore wrote: »
    I think the best course of action would have been to pre-empt this situation legislatively.
    Set up a law such that where any unsubscribed house needs the FB, the owner comes due for all subscriptions past and present.
    So sure, you can not pay, and if you don't get a fire for ten years, then after you do get a fire, you pay for all years from the last subscription to the present.

    And then if nobody has a fire for a year or two the service closes down due to lack of funds.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,453 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    topper75 wrote: »
    A dose of that might make the electorate realise what a waste of time socialism is for once and for all.
    Over here in the civilised part of the world, when we ring our socialised Fire Brigade we expect them to gear-up, not put us on hold while they check with Accounts first.

    :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    gizmo wrote: »
    Again this eventuality was discussed, the fine would have to be prohibitively large which could result in people being unable to pay it and being dragged unnecessarily through the courts system. The current charge of $75 is easily affordable by anyone who can afford a home in the first place so I don't see why it needs to change.
    Not only has this already been dealt with (a callout charge will be a small percentage of the price of rebuilding a house) your repeated comment doesn't appear to be connected in any way to what you quoted.

    If nuh-uh was a winning debating tactic, some of the posters in this thread could take up lucrative positions as legal counsel.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 377 ✭✭AAAAAAAHHH


    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.

    You seem to be taking some kind of sick pleasure in assuming that the firemen were dancing around laughing at this guy as his house burnt down.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Just came across this story.

    The Fire Chief was physically assaulted after letting a local resident's house burn, because the owner hadn't paid the "rural fire subscription service" fee.


    http://www.firehouse.com/stateprovince/tennessee/tenn-chief-attacked-over-house-allowed-burn

    What a wanker.

    Let's hope this country puts that Libertarian "me-first" crap to the grave where it belongs.


    Dead right , I'm sure the same house owner was bellying up to the bar week after week while his neighbours paid their fire cover.


    Just like the goons in this country, swill the liquor down day in day out and then expect other hardworking people to support you.

    We all know them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    karma_ wrote: »
    The majority disagreed? I doubt that. I would say that the minority disagreed, it's just that they were louder.
    I was referring to the majority of unique posters in this thread, being "louder" is not an issue here.
    karma_ wrote: »
    You point out that it wouldn't be fair to take the man through the courts, yet you see no problem with him losing his house and all his possessions, how the fcuk is that fair?
    Losing his house is only "fair" in the context of the fire service not being able to make another exception for him only paying the subscription retroactively because it would encourage others to do the same. The additional logic behind this can be found in multiple posts from both others and I above.
    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Not only has this already been dealt with (a callout charge will be a small percentage of the price of rebuilding a house) your repeated comment doesn't appear to be connected in any way to what you quoted.
    How is it unrelated? I quoted your comments in this post and gave my rebuttle there. The only additional comment you made on the matter was here:
    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    The point you're trying to make is that if a flat $750 fee was charged for each callout, the fire service would go bankrupt. You have no idea whether or not that is the case. And if its not, charge enough so that the average number of calls covers the expenses, with the alternative option of paying an annual fee.
    Which wouldn't hold true if there were a small number or even no fires in a prolonged period of time. If it was the latter then those who were hit would be faced with a huge fee whereas in the latter case the service would receive no income other than that of the few people who continued to pay the subscription. A number which many of us are arguing would reduce under those circumstances.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭phantom_lord


    BluePlanet wrote: »
    Over here in the civilised part of the world, when we ring our socialised Fire Brigade we expect them to gear-up, not put us on hold while they check with Accounts first.

    :rolleyes:

    That's because you've paid for it.


Advertisement
Advertisement