Firefighters Watch As House Burns
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-10-2010, 01:40 AM
 
RE: Firefighters Watch As House Burns
I'm as much in favor of personal responsibility as anyone, perhaps more than most. However, I think it's irresponsible for firefighters to simply watch a fire, especially if it begins to spread and most fires will spread when left alone. Had they extinguished the fire early and presented the owner with a bill, that would make more sense to me. Personal responsibility isn't the whole issue, here.

For a while, the small community where I live had no fire department - the nearby much larger city FD would respond to fire calls and then bill the owner for that service. Recently, my community was annexed, so this is no longer the case, but the previous situation seemed fair to me and made sense. It makes no sense to stand by and let fires spread.
Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2010, 04:27 PM
 
RE: Firefighters Watch As House Burns
I think when public servants let a trailer with pets inside, burn to the ground because a citizen isn't subscribed to having it saved, while a neighbor who is is served, because their grassy lot caught fire due to flying embers from that burning house, then those firefighters not only insult the firefighters creed, but the bureaucracy that permitted them to commit to the unconscionable, are immoral and without pardon or excuse.

Very often, in a case like this, the defense for inaction is that of responding without those in need having been in compliance with the regulations that would have subscribed them that help, would be seen as a "Moral Hazard".
In other words, helping this family that did not pay the $75.00 fee to insure the firehouse responded to a fire emergency, would set the dangerous precedent that opting out had no repercussions.

I think letting someone's house burn to the ground, while pets suffer and die inside, and set the impression that even a child would not have inspired action, sets a dangerous precedent that costs well more than $75.00 and leaves an indelible impression that the moral hazard, is depraved indifference to human suffering, when professional responsive action is otherwise and by rule at option and for sale.
Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2010, 11:36 PM
RE: Firefighters Watch As House Burns
This is what a Right Wing Libertarians America would look like...void of compassion and empathy.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2010, 11:02 PM
 
RE: Firefighters Watch As House Burns
(11-10-2010 11:36 PM)sosa Wrote:  This is what a Right Wing Libertarians America would look like...void of compassion and empathy.
Funny you should put it that way.

Article: Exploring the Right Wing Blogosphere
Libertarian Fire Department Lets House Burn Because Owner Didn't Pay $75; Rightbloggers Applaud Free Market, Suffering
Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2010, 05:45 PM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2010 06:19 PM by BnW.)
RE: Firefighters Watch As House Burns
Quote:Very often, in a case like this, the defense for inaction is that of responding without those in need having been in compliance with the regulations that would have subscribed them that help, would be seen as a "Moral Hazard".

I just love the fact that I live in a country where we handed over a trillion dollars to the assholes who caused the worst financial collapse in 81 years and a bunch of fireman watched a man's house burn down and his pets burn to death because he didn't pay $75 and it was a "moral hazard".

Un-fucking-believable.

I'm a big fan of personal responsibility myself and there certainly is not enough of it in modern society but this was just criminal. So he didn't pay the $75. Big deal. You bill him and put a lien on his house if he doesn't pay it after that. You don't let everything he owns and his pets burn up and risk a fire that can take out his neighbors because he didn't pay $75.
Ok, I'm thinking more about this and I'm working myself up to being fully incensed. What really got me going was this gem from the article:

South Fulton Mayor David Crocker didn't exude compassion when interviewed for the same report, comparing the service to an insurance policy. "Anybody that's not in the city of South Fulton, it's a service we offer, either they accept it or they don't."

Bullshit. It's not a service they offer, it's a service they provide. Citizens have a right to expect their local governments to provide basic services like police and fire. If someone doesn't pay the requisite fees there are means of collecting the monies owed. You can put a lien on the home, you can file a claim against him, you can assess him penalties. What you can't do is be an asshat who sends fireman out to his house and have them stand there and watch so you can make a point about responsibility.

This really is amazing. If he misses the $50 fee for police protection are they going to refuse to investigate if he's robbed or assaulted?

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2011, 10:02 AM
 
RE: Firefighters Watch As House Burns
it's sickening that we have gotten this petty. let a persons house burn down because of a laps of a 75 dollar fee ?!?! the humane think to do is clear.... put the damn thing out, then you could send him a bill, i'm sure he would gladly pay it. have even our firefighters become like Darth Vader Cheney... heartless???
Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2011, 07:08 AM
 
RE: Firefighters Watch As House Burns
Surely a solution to the 'pay up or burn' vs '$75 per year tax' is to allow those outside city limits to choose whether or not they pay the $75 protection fee.

When the fire dept is called out to tackle a fire, they are billed at that point for any outstanding money they owe.

This would satisfy the two positions of 'I want to pay up front for protection' vs 'i only want to pay if the fire dept is required'.

The end result would be fairer than the current tax, where you can pay all your life for 'protection' and never use the service.

There are problems with the above, the yearly rate would have to rise, as less outsiders would pay it, so the fire dept would be in 'debt' for most of the year.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: