When all the taxes go into a big pot and get distributed...
that is eerily close to the most contemptible word in America today...shh, it sounds like Socialism 
Think of it as PBS. Many people watch PBS who haven't contributed; enough people do contribute to PBS to keep the channel on the air. Sure, some people are free-loading...
However, in this case we are talking about someone (the fire dept) that is in a position to help and wouldn't. This isn't about the free-load watching of some TV station...we are potentially taking about life and death here!
If I was on that fire truck and saw someone's house burning down, I would grab a hose and try and put the frigging fire out. I really wouldn't care if someone had forgotten/intentionally whatever to pay some $75...
KOAJ..to me, funding an essential service - like a fire dept - shouldn't come down to whether someone paid some extra fee for service. Yes there is a role for government, as abhorrent as that may sound.
There are numerous different arguaments going on in this thread. I landed on the human decency angle, for the time being. It may sound simplistic, but put the fire out first! Then argue about whether someone deserved it or was free-loading just because they didn't pay a service fee.
On a side note. I can't imagine this happening in, oh let's say, rural Canada. Nobody would care if someone needed assistance in the sticks and hadn't paid some extra fee. Arguing that someone who has not paid some fee, and is therefore not entitled to have their house hosed down, is purely assinine. Geez what's next - witholding medical care because someone hasn't paid their medical insurance?!
In my mind, this is so clearly and obviously the best answer that reading the rest of the posts in this thread baffles my mind
Politically, I tend to be all over the place, but gun held to my head, I'd consider myself a libertarian. KOAJ, I know you lean in that direction as well, and I have to say, reading your posts that appear to support letting this house burn down diasppointed me greatly. I think it illustrates exactly why people are critical of that movement. There is a time and place for politics, and ecomonics, but letting it creep in while a house (with living creatures inside) burns down, is just wrong
In my mind, this is so clearly and obviously the best answer that reading the rest of the posts in this thread baffles my mind
Politically, I tend to be all over the place, but gun held to my head, I'd consider myself a libertarian. KOAJ, I know you lean in that direction as well, and I have to say, reading your posts that appear to support letting this house burn down diasppointed me greatly. I think it illustrates exactly why people are critical of that movement. There is a time and place for politics, and ecomonics, but letting it creep in while a house (with living creatures inside) burns down, is just wrong
KOAJ..to me, funding an essential service - like a fire dept - shouldn't come down to whether someone paid some extra fee for service. Yes there is a role for government, as abhorrent as that may sound.
There are numerous different arguaments going on in this thread. I landed on the human decency angle, for the time being. It may sound simplistic, but put the fire out first! Then argue about whether someone deserved it or was free-loading just because they didn't pay a service fee.
On a side note. I can't imagine this happening in, oh let's say, rural Canada. Nobody would care if someone needed assistance in the sticks and hadn't paid some extra fee. Arguing that someone who has not paid some fee, and is therefore not entitled to have their house hosed down, is purely assinine. Geez what's next - witholding medical care because someone hasn't paid their medical insurance?!
In my mind, this is so clearly and obviously the best answer that reading the rest of the posts in this thread baffles my mind
Politically, I tend to be all over the place, but gun held to my head, I'd consider myself a libertarian. KOAJ, I know you lean in that direction as well, and I have to say, reading your posts that appear to support letting this house burn down diasppointed me greatly. I think it illustrates exactly why people are critical of that movement. There is a time and place for politics, and ecomonics, but letting it creep in while a house (with living creatures inside) burns down, is just wrong
"I hadn't paid my $75 and that's what they want, $75, and they don't care how much it burned down," Gene Cranick told WPSD, an NBC affiliate in Kentucky. "I thought they'd come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75, but I was wrong."
---------------------------------
the homeowner's quote from yahoo story on its front page
if he was right, would anyone else have ever paid the $75 fee again?
choices = consequences. its amazing we have gotten so used to Sugar Daddy government holding our dicks while we pee, when they don't we pee on the wall. our dependence on government has made us almost useless to function as self reliant people. if you make a choice, you must understand the consequences that come with that choice and take responsibility for it.
also, the law or the rule is not always the moral or right thing to do, like this story. "following orders" is not a valid defense. that was established at Nuremburg
I fear you have a very cynical veiw on life, KOAJ. If I hear what you are saying correctly your main argument boils down to is this, "The right to protect myself (a law abiding taxpayer) against free-loaders that abuse the system, trumps absolutely everything."
That logic works for me in lets say for the dog catcher - you don't pay for a dogs licence, well guess what it will cost you a pretty penny to get your pooch from the pound. Garbage collection, same thing - don't want someone to get your trash? Fine drive to the dump and pay the fee yourself. BUT, doesn't there come a time following this reasoning, where putting out a fire - no freaking questions asked - is the right thing to do?
To be honest I don't think everyone will just say to hell with it and not pay this wonderful $75 fee. People would still pay it, they want to buy an insurance policy. Granted not as many if everyone thinks Sugar Daddy government will help them out anyway. But I'll argue that would not be the case.
choices = consequences. its amazing we have gotten so used to Sugar Daddy government holding our dicks while we pee, when they don't we pee on the wall. our dependence on government has made us almost useless to function as self reliant people. if you make a choice, you must understand the consequences that come with that choice and take responsibility for it.
Your disdain and outright hatred for the government comes shining through here. All hail self reliant people. Seriously, all the power to them. But don't ask someone if they have paid some bloody fee before you put out the flames on their house. To follow an earlier post: would you deny medical attention to anyone who hasn't paid fees or has insurance? Should there be no sociatal safety net at all, everyone for themselves? "If you didn't pay up front - screw it, too late, you knew the risks." To me that would be a sad, sick society...
this boils down to a simple insurance policy in this town,. this had been offered by this town since 1990 when an incident like this happened. this man CHOSE not to pay the insurance policy and he wasnt covered
Sure it is a simple insurance policy. If you don't have insurance, you don't normally expect to get reimbursed by anyone. But even the most grizzled and jaded amongst us would expect to have a fire put out if a fire truck is available. Glad you agree
If you live outside the town, you must pay a $75 fee if you want to use the town’s fire department.
A man who lived outside the town chose not to pay the $75 fee.
The man’s house caught on fire.
Because he didn’t pay the $75 fee the fire department didn’t spend their resources putting out the fire.
Makes sense to me, but of course I’m not a far-left zealot.
If you live outside the town, you must pay a $75 fee if you want to use the town’s fire department.
A man who lived outside the town chose not to pay the $75 fee.
The man’s house caught on fire.
Because he didn’t pay the $75 fee the fire department didn’t spend their resources putting out the fire.
Makes sense to me, but of course I’m not a far-left zealot.
911...what is your emergency?
shooter...my house is on fire. I have 16 crates of ammo stored and 4 tons of TNT in there for the uprising
911...did you pay the fee?
shooter...no but, if that blows it could take out half the state
911...don't you think we have heard that one before, sir! BOOM, holy shit what was that?!
911...what is your emergency?
shooter...my house is on fire. I have 16 crates of ammo stored and 4 tons of TNT in there for the uprising
911...did you pay the fee?
shooter...no but, if that blows it could take out half the state
911...don't you think we have heard that one before, sir! BOOM, holy shit what was that?!
If I had 16 crates of ammo and 4 tons of TNT I think I probably would have splurged and paid the $75 fee.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
